The Tasmanian House of Assembly is recalled to debate the Legislative Council amendments to theTasmanian Forest Agreement Bill 2012….

HANSARD

Mr McKim, Leader of the Tasmanian Greens

Mr Speaker, this amended Bill put before us is a dramatically different Bill to that which left this House last year.

It is by no means a perfect Bill, in fact, it is manifestly imperfect in a number of its provisions.

And it must be said that many of the amendments made by the Upper House defer, or reduce certainty around, conservation outcomes. And that, Mr Speaker, is no coincidence.

There is no doubt that the Upper House has amended this Bill so savagely that it no longer reflects the agreement struck by the forest signatories, and that this House now needs to consider how best to salvage an outcome from the Legislative Council’s wreckage.

The Signatories’ agreement would have given peace in our forests a chance.

But we will now never know how things would have played out if the Signatories’ agreement had been faithfully legislated, because the Upper House has tragically removed that possibility from Tasmania’s future.

But despite the Bill’s imperfections, it still delivers some major conservation gains for Tasmania.

It immediately provides legislated protection from logging for over 500 000 hectares of High Conservation Value forests.

These iconic forests, these carbon banks, these global treasures, in places like the Styx, the Weld, the Huon, the Florentine, the Tasman Peninsula, Bruny Island, the Blue Tiers, the Western Tiers and the Tarkine will for the first time in their history have legislated protection from logging. Simply by the passing of this Bill.

The Bill also provides pathways to the creation of 504 000 ha of new formal reserves, including new national parks, and to the achievement of full Forest Stewardship Council certification by the Tasmanian timber industry.

It is true that there remains uncertainty around new reserves, and that the uncertainty is greater due to the Legislative Council amendments.

But the Bill nevertheless provides an opportunity for these reserves, the chance of an absolutely stunning conservation gain, and the Greens believe Tasmania deserves no less.

And it is true there remains uncertainty around the achievement of full FSC, and that the uncertainty is also greater due to the Legislative Council amendments.

But the Bill nevertheless provides the opportunity and a pathway for the achievement of full FSC, and therefore a potentially remarkable transformation in the way the forest industry conducts itself on the ground in Tasmania. And the Greens believe that Tasmania deserves no less.

And importantly, the Bill also reduces the legislated sawlog quota from a minimum of 300 000 m3 to a minimum of 137 000 m3.

These are significant steps towards the implementation of long held Greens policy.

When deciding how to proceed today, the Tasmanian Greens considered many things.

We considered the bitter conflict that has existed over forestry for many decades in Tasmania. A conflict that has placed lives at risk, put jobs in jeopardy, and held Tasmania back from reaching its full potential.

We considered the massive efforts of the Forest Signatories, bitter enemies who came together and who for nearly three years sought in a constructive way to reach agreement on a way forward.

We considered the commitment of current state and commonwealth governments to being part of a solution instead of part of an ongoing problem

We considered the conservation gains I have referred to.

We also considered the letter written to the Signatories yesterday by the Minister for Resources Mr Bryan Green.

We considered that in his letter, Mr Green agreed, amongst many other commitments to:

 finalise the gazettals of new reserves under the Nature Conservation Act for the World Heritage Area first ‘tranche’ of reserves with the clear intention that this is achieved by the end of this year

 that there is a new Conservation Agreement under the Commonwealth EPBC Act put in force over the entire 504, 000 hectares that doesn’t expire until the gazettal of all new reserves under Schedule A subject to transitional scheduling, which is to be signed by both governments, explicitly including Parks and Wildlife Service, and FT.

 transfer the day to day management of the identified future reserve land, the 504, 000hectares, from Forestry Tasmania to Parks and Wildlife Service under a formal service agreement as soon as the Act commences.

 supporting the Australian government’s undertaking that it will not approve harvesting of wood, including specialty timbers, within World Heritage nominated or listed areas.

We also considered the Upper House, and our firm belief that to refuse the amendments made by the Upper House, and therefore send the Bill back to the Legislative Council for further consideration, would result in one of only two possible outcomes: either the Bill would be sent back to us in a form that further erodes the conservation gains, or the Bill would die in the Upper House.

We considered that all of the signatories have asked that this Bill be passed through the lower House unamended today.

We considered the statement made yesterday by Mr Bob Annels, Chair of Forestry Tasmania.

A statement in which Mr Annels committed his organization to full Forest Stewardship Council certification, and in which he ruled out logging under any circumstances in the forests nominated for World Heritage status, allowing for a small number of transitional coupes that will be completed within weeks.

We considered the money available from the Commonwealth, the remaining $100 million to assist in the ongoing transformation of Tasmania’s economy that will be one of this Labor-Green government’s greatest legacies to our state.

We considered the $9m per year extra assistance to manage Tasmania’s world class reserve system that will flow should this Bill pass.

We considered the carbon embedded in the forest ecosystems protected from logging, and our responsibility to play a role in reducing global emissions.

We considered that we now have confirmation that the Commonwealth has given a commitment that carbon from forest ecosystems protected by this legislation will be granted additionality, and therefore will be eligible under the Carbon Farming Initiative to be traded nationally and globally on mandatory carbon markets.

Of course, we also considered those parts of the Bill which do not reflect Greens’ policy, including delays in the creation of formal reserves, the maintenance of a legislated minimum sawlog quota of any amount, the sovereign risk provisions, and the amendments which allow either House of the Parliament to use protest or market interference as an excuse to block new Reserves.

I want to be clear that those amendments, which allow either House of the Parliament to use protest or market disruption as an excuse to try and block new reserves do not in any way constitute a ban on protests or market campaigns as some have claimed.

A final consideration included our responsibility to play a constructive role in Tasmanian politics, and to help guide Tasmania to a more prosperous and united future.

We considered the need for a co-operative approach, for people working together to solve Tasmania’s problems rather than lobbing grenades from the trenches.

We believe that’s what the vast majority of Tasmanians want. And that’s what the Greens want to be a part of.

The Greens have had to weigh in the balance the provisions of this Bill that we support, and those that in isolation we would not. But due to the wreckers in the Upper House, the Tasmanian Greens believe that the Bill as amended is a ‘take it or leave it’ package.

And that is why after long and difficult consideration, the Tasmanian Greens Party Room has decided in accordance with our Party Room rules to vote to accept the amendments from the Upper House and therefore allow this Bill to pass through the Tasmanian Parliament today and become law.

• Tony Mulder MLC, in Comments, HERE:Delayed gratification is sweeter! This is not about my performance. The time for words has passed, now is the time for deeds. The industry, government and the ENGOs have all committed to deliver. They have committed to deliver on reserves, FSC certification, speciality timbers, exit packages, investment, etc. It will be hard, I hope they succeed, but if they fail, walk away or give up, then they deserve to be ‘put to the sword!’ I did not fundamentally change anything, all I asked of the Milne, Brown and the Green priesthood is that they delay gratification and earn their rewards - they are much sweeter that way.

• PM: Loggers, conservations must seize deal“The obligation is on the signatories that first came together, the parties who started this process, to do everything they can to use their abilities to silence those who haven’t gone with the mainstream consensus.”• HERE

• Christine Milne: Community and The Australian Greens will not be “silenced” Prime Minister“My fears of a crackdown on democratic freedoms have been realised within 24 hours. I call on the Prime Minister to withdraw her attack on those who have the courage to not be part of the mainstream consensus. “On day one, the Prime Minister of Australia has thrown her weight behind an assault on a fundamental democratic freedom, namely, freedom of speech and non-violent protest by saying: “The obligation is on the signatories that first came together, the parties that started this process, to do everything they can to use their abilities to silence those who haven’t gone with the mainstream consensus.” “It is wrong to threaten the community that if they speak out about what is happening in our forests, or if FSC certification is not given to Forestry Tasmania, then the magnificent forest areas under a logging moratorium will not be reserved. “I will stand with conservationists and the community and will never be silenced, Prime Minister.” • HERE

• Christine Milne: Transcript: National Disability Insurance Scheme, Tasmanian Forest AgreementJOURNALIST: Is Bob Brown, yourself and Peg Putt have all said that apart from Kim Booth the Tasmanian Greens did the wrong thing yesterday, is Nick McKim’s position as leader untenable now? CHRISTINE MILNE: Not at all, Nick’s the leader of the Tasmanian Greens and he has done a great job as leader of the Tasmanian Greens. He has the full confidence of his party room and the Greens party and he will continue to lead the Tasmanian Greens. You have to put yourself into the difficult position that he and his colleagues were in trying to make a decision about what was salvageable. Now there is a difference of opinion as to what was salvageable and the costs of that salvage operation but that’s as far as it goes. We are all committed to getting forest conservation in Tasmania and my job now is to work with everyone on the ground to make sure that those reserves which are out there on the never-never actually become reserved. • HERE

• Nick McKim: Historic step forward for conservation“The right to protest is essential for democracy and must be preserved, but we hope that over time people will see that this legislation can deliver the high levels of forest protection that everyone in the environment movement wants to see.”• HERE

Whatever spin you want to put ion it McKim, the Tasmanian Forest Industry is a rogue non-profit welfare-dependent basket case.

All you have done, once again, is hand over half a BILLION dollars to a small group of spiteful freeloaders and NOT ONE SINGLE TREE has been saved or even earmarked for saving.

You should have demanded that all players show they will run at a profit SUSTAINABLY for the next two decades without ANY assistance before you even looked at any deal.

You are a traitor. You should have LEFT IT!

Posted by Russell Langfield on 01/05/13 at 08:31 AM

Bring on the Independents and disband the eNGO’s.

Posted by Emma Goldman on 01/05/13 at 08:59 AM

McKim knows, as Lara admitted, that the TFA was all about the desperate need for FSC certification. Particularly a bogus certification that preserves the status quo.

How could anyone agree to deferred reserves with both Abbott and Hodgman gummints looming on the horizon?

The McGreens seem to have adopted a Blair-type Third Way agenda, i.e a Graham Richo whatever-it-takes approach, that will keep them on the gravy train.

It was too much for Christine. It will be interesting to see the response of Whish-Wilson to the new opportunities.

John Hayward

Posted by john hayward on 01/05/13 at 09:33 AM

The government has legislated that it has to get FSC certification in 18 months or it will log these reserved forests. Even a perfect FSC timeline is longer than that. As Frank Strie says ‘the world is watching’.

Posted by Karl Stevens on 01/05/13 at 09:46 AM

The big trees stood lonely and old
The Greens said they could not be sold
At night they were downed
And the money went round
Coz timber was worth more than gold

Posted by Got Me a Plank on 01/05/13 at 10:27 AM

Interesting the comments from Forestry Tasmania Chairman, Bob Annells; they are particulartly worrying and ignorant.

The Parliament of Tasmania through this TFA Act has identified the logging zones and if the reserved areas are required for specialty timbers access Mr Annells does not have the authority to determine otherwise. It is legislated and no last-minute letter to the ENGOs from Bryan Green can change that legality.

The position Mr Annells has taken is erroneous as he cannot over-rule the Parliament and this TFA Act is now passed with the concurrence of 4 Tasmanian Greens MPs.

This is not over and no doubt interesting months are ahead.

Many predicted the ENGOs and the Signatories others would sign off on all the Legislative Council amendments because this was their only opportunity in the foreseeable future to secure some forest reservation extensions in Tasmania, albeit delayed and subject to conditions.

Senator Christine Milne is, of course, correct in my view when she says the Tasmanian Forest Agreement is dead as I cannot see the Act surviving the attempts to get full FSC certification for Forestry Tasmania and the stringent durability provisions in thwe Act.

These are very substantial hurdles to jump, particularly now with Bob Browm, Peg Putt, Kim Booth and Christine Millne off side.

Flawed process… flawed outcome.

Posted by David Obendorf on 01/05/13 at 11:26 AM

In response to all the posts above, I’d ask, ‘What is Plan B?’. The answer is either there isn’t one or business as usual - both amount to the same thing. When it comes to the choice of these seismic conservation wins actually being permanent or zero conservation wins, how can anyone who purports to be an environmentalist not support the TFA? At least with it, there’s a chance, without it, there’s none.

Posted by tom de kadt on 01/05/13 at 12:19 PM

Deals, deals, deals!

Where is the underpinning, clear-cut, comprehensive, unshakable triple bottom line forestry policy (ecology, economy, society), on which this latest piece of forest legislation rests?

The choir of forest industries/government and sundry hangers-on will no doubt chant that (says the ABC) “the State Government offered a range of sweeteners to keep the deal alive. They include: Forestry Tasmania to immediately pursue Forest Stewardship Council (FSC) certification and not log existing reserves or agreed future reserve areas”.

So that makes the Forestry Tasmania Government Business Enterprise (GBE) the sole authority to hold in its hands the key to transforming Tasmania from a loss-making, environment destroying, people alienating forest mining monster to a shining example of modern natural resource management! Decreed one fine Tuesday evening!

Governments of the day gave Forestry Tasmania free reins and big dollars to pursue their ruinous forest management practices for decades, and now they let the same FT loose again to establish what they have steadfastly boycotted for decades, namely a successful triple bottom line forest operation? “Immediately(!) pursue Forest Stewardship Council (FSC) certification”! A one-liner, described as a sweetener!

FSC certification is not something you need to do quickly, like swatting an annoying fly. FSC certification is in fact the last step in a policy development process.

First there needs to be a stated conviction, enshrined in law, that a Country, State, Region wants to practice a truly sustainable forest and natural resource management policy. Once that will is formulate and established beyond doubt, things like FSC certification or possible other management methods with high aspirations regarding integrity would then be adopted.

Has anyone seen such a clear-cut will being expressed, let alone legislated? Hardly!

Why not? Because that’s far more binding that “immediately” pursuing a certification system, that shows an obvious and strong potential for subversion.

Adopting a triple bottom line natural resource management policy is a political core decision that must be taken consciously and its practical manifestations regulated beyond doubt.

To my knowledge, none of that has been done and the population can not enthusiastically follow it.

What we have here is the work of rascals engaging in deals, not states(wo)men creating wise legislation.

Peace cannot be reached in the forests until the opportunistic “compromise” seeking makes way for a serious turn around of our approaches to natural resource management.

Posted by Peter Brenner on 01/05/13 at 12:26 PM

The “peace in our time” line is, frankly, nonsense in my opinion. In no other jurisdiction/state/country would this be seriously considered because it’s as undesirable as it is unworkable. Every state and country has people campaigning about a whole range of environmental issues. Why should Tas be an exception?

#PeterBrenner - probably best that you don’t rely on an ABC report as your sole source. The ABC report is not the Bill.

You do know that the Bill transfers management of the reserves to the Parks and Wildlife department, away from FT, don’t you?

Posted by tom de kadt on 01/05/13 at 12:40 PM

Anyone feeling amazed at this split in the Greens need some reality education, and expressions of Shock! Horror! How could They? reveal one or both of two deficiencies: an almost 100% lack of awareness about group dynamics (especially among the highly passionate and committed) and / or a delusional belief that The Greens arre above that sort of very human argy-bargy.

The history of every movement, every campaign, every religion, every ideology is a history of splits, often with murderously violent results. Every TT-er should be aware of two of these: Christianity > Catholic v Protestant, and Islam > Sunni v Shia. The former split resulted in the European religious wars of the 1500s & 1600s, culminating in the mass slaughter of the Thirty Years War; the latter and even older split is the reason that 95% of the victims of Islamic / Islamist mass-murdering through suicide bombing are fellow Muslims. (And, no, these fanatics are really not as stupid as some of our academics: they don’t go like “Gotta blow up five hundred Hazara heretics / a schoolful of five hundred girls & women to show solidarity with the Palestinians”.

The default dynamic of a group such as The Greens is centrifugal, not centripetal. The default counter-measure often involves actions such as The Night of the Long Knives or Show Trials, Purges & Gulags.

One of Whitlam’s greatest achievements was to re-unite the 1960s / 70s ALP after its own Split between the pragmatists focused on gaining government and the so-called or self-styled true believers in a sort of Marxism-lite. Eventually, even the purest of groups, such as The Greens, have to compromise, and have to accept that there can be good compromises; there is no alternative if they want to stay relevant and effective. This can be a strength, rather than a weakness.

Posted by Leonard Colquhoun on 01/05/13 at 12:47 PM

#6 David Obendorf thank you kindly for the updates.
I have a question as I have always based the WPZ’s and STZ’s Production forests areas as legislated through the current Regional Forest Agreement, 1997-2017 with 5 yearly reviews!
I would expect that the RFA legislation overrides any subsequent TFA “interim” legislation that may not supposedly become fully effective till 2014, pending good behaviour by protestors, successful FSC which could take years and perhaps facing unanticipated Wood Supply arrangements due to marketing changes or the effects of wildfires within the forest estate.

You mention the TFA Act, so how far is this arrangement to be believed!
TFA Act? what for the payment of Federal monies, how does this hold the pending future reserves gaurantee together, it doesn’t does it?
Any future State Government could change this at a whim, especially before Oct 2014.
The next RFA review would be in place by 2017 which is only tomorrow, the way things are spinning out of control!

Unless there is a way foward no one either in government, forestry, industry, business or natural resources can plan ahead, agreed!
The way I see it FT production forestry is facing a mine field after the Federal monies are distributed, the protesters will be back in droves!
The Green controllled State Labor government hopefully will lose the election to the Liberals in March 2014 as punishment for their combining dillusiveness with overly ambitious political stupidity!

David, Cheers for now, if you can make heads or tails of what is actually meant to happen, good luck!

Posted by Robin Halton on 01/05/13 at 01:32 PM

When Tom de kadt joins a TT thread it is always an opportunity for him to speak on behalf of others who will not engage online.

Tom, take on the Greens leaders in this State like Bob Brown, Peg Putt and Christine Milne with your views and please tell us how you get on. Thank you!

Posted by David Obendorf on 01/05/13 at 01:48 PM

I have the utmost contempt for the spineless ENGOs who have ignored the sage advice of their elders, capitulated to the logging industry and sold out the entire conservation movement by backing the Upper House amendments on the basis of “promises” made in a surreptitious letter by Minister Bryan Green which have no legal effect.

And I equally condemn the acquiescent Tasmanian Greens (with the exception of Kim Booth) who have proven that they will do anything to hold on to power. This has extended to the support of taxpayer funded payment to Gunns to extinguish wood supply contracts it had already cancelled by notification to FT

and refusing to publicly disclose the Solicitor General’s legal advice on the matter.

Even worse, by backing the Bill the Tasmanian Greens have supported even further taxpayer funded payment to Ta Ann, a company which has long term wood supply contracts which Forestry Tasmania cannot meet even if no reserves are created and which is accused of being deeply embedded in systemic corruption and breach of human rights in Sarawak.

Furthermore, a Greens Minister who tweets during the course of debate on the Bill that “Greeny’s on fire! Landing blow after blow on the hapless Libs ... Great viewing” is not worthy of her position.

I also consider that the Special Council to be established under the TFA Act is an illegitimate body and does not have the authority under common law to determine the future use of public land. In any case, the durability provisions of the agreement have already been breached by representatives of the forest industry signatories who have written to UNESCO protesting against the nomination for the extension of the World Heritage Area.

Despite the intentions of the Upper House amendments, it is clear that Forestry Tasmania will never achieve FSC certification whilst it continues its archaic clearfell, burn and sow regime unless there is a complete subversion of international FSC principles.

FT also has a long standing track record of duplicity and obfuscation rendering void any so-called commitment to avoid logging areas nominated for protection.

By participating in the talks leading to the TFA, the Wilderness Society and Environment Tasmania have provided life assistance and taxpayer funded support to an industry that was dead on its knees and would by necessity have restructured and significantly downsized its impact on our environment.

At the same time they have been mute on other threats to our environment such as mining and roading in the Tarkine wilderness and weakening of the permanent native forest estate policy to allow broadscale land clearance for dairy farm expansion at Woolnorth.

The credibility of these ENGOs and Tasmanian Greens to represent environmental concerns is now in tatters and I for one will never forgive them.

Posted by PB on 01/05/13 at 02:10 PM

Yes #10 the forest peace deals resemble the middle east conflict in many ways. Not least, the way Tasmanian Forest destruction society/Israeli State are the arbiters of power who make one sided demands, which amount to “put down all your weapons while we shrink the palestinian territories/native forests out of existence.” It is perpetual peace for perpetual war. When military peace exists during the rounds of “peace negotiations” what is ongoing in the Palestinian territories is a war of economics, territory, that aims to break the people, and maintain on ongoing subjugation and dispossession. The same applies to the peace talks in Tasmania, with the environmental groups in a power imbalance as their hand is forced towards greater and greater compromise till what is left on the table is isolated pockets of wilderness saved from the chippers hand. Just look at the shrinking map of Palestine which is now a series of annexed borders that are controlled by Israeli forces. Controlling the resources, controlling the economy, maintaining the apartheid of Gaza (as prominent Jewish figure Noam Chomsky described as an open air prison)

Peace in these times? Not too those on the side of dispossession take ownership of their onerous self serving attitude of greed and control. Not too the handouts from the state-capital nexus who keep the whole game rolling in perpetuity, are ended, will peace have the slimmest of chances.

The animosity towards the best parts of this Bill is bizarre.
These two undeniable facts are something that every environmentalist in Tassie should be cheering:

1. On top of the 80,000ha protected immediately, 170,000ha goes into WHA nominated area now.

2. 500,000ha of pristine native forest will be protected the second the Bill is signed by the Govenor. This means the Forest Practices plan is rescinded, logging rights cancelled and responsibility for the 500K/ha moves from Forestry Tasmania to Parks and Wildlife. Big, big win.

If any future govt wants to undo this legislation, then both houses of parl have to agree, as with any other laws.

A few years ago, the possibility of these clunking great Greens wins getting up would have been unthinkable. It is now reality. It is imperfect legislation.

But getting these onto the statue book is obviously better than these conservation wins not getting onto the statue book, with all the inherent flaws around them.

How can it be better to achieve nothing than something like these undeniable wins? How?

Posted by tom de kadt on 01/05/13 at 04:14 PM

What has become clear from Nick Mckim’s media statements today & comments coming from Greens staffers today thru social media is that the Tasmanian Greens have followed the ENGO’s lead, drawn a line in the sand & cut loose the Green infantry (HVEC,SWST, Code Green etc. who’ve done The Greens dirty work in forests for decades).

Apparently you & I were not meant to notice this non too subtle positional/language shift by the Greens.

The day after Mckim’s Greens backed the TFA into law the party has for the first time in the debate publically joined the Mainstream environment groups v fringe environment groups discourse. The divisive discourse that the ENGO’s began, the discourse designed to dump on & marginalise their loyal foot soldiers from the forest frontline. The discourse also favoured by the Tasmanian Media. Mckim, his staffers & Giddings are singing from the same song book. We are the mainstream. You’re not.

Just like that. The Tasmanian Greens loyal forest activist foot soldiers thrown to the wolves.

The big split is on.

And then came the Australian Prime Minister’s call today for TFA signatories & supporters to .....“use their abilities to silence those who haven’t gone with the mainstream consensus.”

Weber & co. The new lepers.

The only thing left now is for The Greens to dump Kim Booth & for Bailey or Pullinger to move north & stand for the Greens in Bass.

Posted by Pilko on 01/05/13 at 04:59 PM

Re #7
Are you blind and/or deaf?

“You (Nick McKim) should have demanded that all players show they will run at a profit SUSTAINABLY for the next two decades without ANY assistance before you even looked at any deal.”

Other than that, Tom, it should have been left to wither as the woodchip/pulp/MIS not-for-profit Forest Industry has.

What the hell are you supporting? Another half a billion dollar handout to follow the billions already gone to this mendicant industry (of very few players)? Without a single tree being reserved? Not one of your points in your post #16 are set in concrete.

What wins???

In #9 you say “You do know that the Bill transfers management of the reserves to the Parks and Wildlife department, away from FT, don’t you?”

Here’s the rub.

FT yesterday (or the day before) said that they (FT) promised not to log the proposed areas, except for those already underway. It may now be that Parks and Wildlife will have a heads of Department shake-up so that FT is dissolved and Gordie and the boys move over to P&W management (or a new logging “Your Multiple Use State Forests at Work” division therein) and hey presto! business as usual. Or something similar.

Eh? What are the odds?

Posted by Russell Langfield on 01/05/13 at 05:32 PM

calm down, Rick. I was watching the Twitter stream. And you’re basing your melodramatic conclusions on debating this issue with a single junior staffer who wasn’t involved at all in any of the forest negotiations.
Not true that the Greens have “cut loose the infantry” whatever that means.
Not true that the party has begun an us and them dialogue. It’s not us and them. It’s the environment or bust.
The big split, whatever that means, is not on.
Me and every single Green I reckon disagree 100% with the Prime Minister’s undemocratic call today to “silence” free protest.
You need to rejig your grand consipiracy theory…

Posted by tom de kadt on 01/05/13 at 05:33 PM

What will be interesting is how an incoming Abbott gummint will recover the money Tas owes it when the Abetz party flouts the terms of the TFA as a result of the LC amendments.

Formerly, the money would just disappear into FT’s bottomless pocket, but Abbott could hardly tolerate that in the midst of a draconian austerity campaign. Could he?

John Hayward

Posted by john hayward on 01/05/13 at 05:37 PM

For those who complain about this far from perfect outcome, please outline your realistic alternative outcome. Tell us in fact, why you didn’t step forward to create your ideal through any of these bitter decades. We have been fighting for and losing the best of Tasmania’s oldgrowth forests for close on 50 years. In a few more years the remnants would not be worth the fight.

This legislation will be implemented over coming years, undoubtedly with both conservation gains and losses. But we are already ahead of the alternative, which would see no world heritage extension and one government or another throw money at a diminished logging industry which would strategically savage the best of the remaining high conservation value forests in the classic “lose-lose” scenario.

The increased emphasis on FSC certification that was a main component of Tony Mulder’s destructive amendments may well turn out to be a perverse outcome for his wrecking intention. FSC will turn the spotlight on the forest practices in the areas outside of the 504,000ha that are available for logging and who knows, through this there may just be the opportunity to move the industry towards something resembling sustainability.

Posted by Rob Blakers on 01/05/13 at 06:02 PM

It is actually worse than that Pilko [comment #17], the division in the green movement now so public and furious is something that doesn’t seem to phase the leader of this Party.

The Tasmanian Greens have always considered themselves as the only progressive political force in Tasmania and as such believe that their disgruntled voters will never ever desert them at the ballot box because that would mean voting for Labor or, heaven forbid, the Liberals!

Taking their voters for granted has allowed them to develop a level of hubris that is expressed in the cited tweet attributed to a Greens Minister in Giddings cabinet: ... a Greens’ Minister who tweets during the course of debate on the Bill that “Greeny’s on fire! Landing blow after blow on the hapless Libs ... Great viewing” is not worthy of her position.

Is this an example of the new paradigm of the Tasmanian Greens power-sharing Parliamentary performance?

Taking voters for granted is always risky.

My intention is to vote informally in the next State election because I cannot preference 5 candidates that I’d be happy to see as MPs in Parliament.

Posted by David Obendorf on 01/05/13 at 06:03 PM

Anyone who has kept an eye on the Green MPs, particularly Nicassy, would not be surprised by what happened. They have rubber-stamped everything the Labs have done since being in government with them and got absolutely nothing in return. (Except a big paypacket, fancy car and driver etc of course.) Weak? Who knows. Useless? You bet.

And simply too gutless to even draw a line in the sand, let alone stand by one.

You have lost my vote.

Prepare for decimation come March. People who have never voted Liberal before will do so just to see the back of you and your masters.

Posted by Big Sim on 01/05/13 at 07:10 PM

tom de kadt 16. The status of the forests hasn’t changed. Forestry Tasmania couldn’t sell them yesterday and today they can only selectively harvest speciality timber from them. In 18 months time their FSC application falls over because they are selling trees to the Taib cartel from Sarawak.
If Nick’s office thinks this is a huge win then wait until the next election. You wont even have drones to put up your election posters.

Posted by Karl Stevens on 01/05/13 at 07:24 PM

Are we all forgetting that Lara assured us that the Agreement is “all about getting the pulp mill up”?

Posted by Tim Thorne on 01/05/13 at 08:30 PM

David, why not stand for parliament yourself?

Posted by Rob Blakers on 01/05/13 at 08:36 PM

Karl, Big Sim, Russel, Pilko, PB.. why not all stand for parliament.

Posted by Rob Blakers on 01/05/13 at 08:45 PM

I’m with Rob Blakers on this. If they think FSC is a getout, they have really not understood reality.
The gradual dawning, which Gunns’ last CEO actually grasped, is that conservation is a Movement - a slow rolling seismic outbreak of common sense that has risen over the last hundred years. It has ten thousand faces, only unified in realizing that we cannot trash the earth and live long on the face of it. Its not an organization, or a party, its much, much bigger than that. Movements can’t be dealt with, diverted, defeated or stopped, because their time has simply come. As more people lose their partners to cancer, their farms to drought and their houses and towns to fire and flood, as more economies collapse, the imperative of conservation will simply sweep the world. The Mulders and the Harriss’s and the Abbott’s will be seen as the throwbacks that they are.
Everyone fighting for the earth in their own way is doing right. Disagreement is healthy, our diversity and absolute ungovernability is our strength. We are friends of the earth, or we are dust.

Posted by Steve Biddulph on 01/05/13 at 09:58 PM

It is of interest to read Rob Blakers comments at this last hour in the forest debate.

Challenging the critics to stand for office within an inherently corrupt parliamentary process is a poor basis for argument indeed.

You know Rob this is about being realistic and standing up for what you believe in - isn’t this why you joined the Greens so many years ago?

This is not about capitulating to the politics of compromise for the sake of a stake in the parliamentary machine.

Posted by Emma Goldman on 01/05/13 at 10:10 PM

Rob Blakers 27. With 19 parliamentary representatives for every Tasmanian voter, 100,000 pages of legislation applying to Australians and 10,000 pages of tax regulations, I don’t consider myself unstable enough to spend one second writing yet more meaningless legislation. As far as I’m concerned parliamentarians are the problem, not the solution.

This bill proves that. Forests grow with no planning in a state of total randomness and yet egocentric politicians think they are writing legislation for trees to comply with. Get real!

Posted by Karl Stevens on 01/05/13 at 11:18 PM

Given that the Liberals have explicitly stated that the TFA will be torn up when they come to power in march 2014, can anyone ascertain what happens to the money once it is paid by the Federal Government?

Will it have to be returned or will it be the same ‘modus operandi’ and swallowed and digested?

Posted by Luca Vanzino on 01/05/13 at 11:53 PM

Wow, 31 comments and two (excluding mine) are broadly positive. The rest of the commentary is negative, speculative, inaccurate and conspiratorial.
Is it so shameful to allow a shred of credit where it’s due? The Bill is a shit sarnie but it is not 100% satanic. There are some good bits - which Tassie’s environment movement could not have countenanced becoming law a few years ago:
1. On top of the 80,000ha protected immediately, 170,000ha goes into WHA nominated area now.
2. 500,000ha of pristine native forest will be protected the second the Bill is signed by the Governor. This means the Forest Practices plan is rescinded, logging rights cancelled and responsibility for the 500K/ha moves from Forestry Tasmania to Parks and Wildlife. Big, big win.
Sawlog quota cut from 300k/cu to 137k/cu.
These humungus Green wins await the Governor’s signature and instead of even a tiny morsel of praise, there’s a revelry of, well, hatred. Amazing.
If any future govt wants to undo this legislation, then both houses of parl have to agree, as with any other laws.

Posted by tom de kadt on 02/05/13 at 07:42 AM

And here was I thinking that Tasmania functioned under the Westminster system of law here in Tassie, well in theory any way.

This top heavy system is certainly providing a sound functional system of rule here in Tasmania for the ruling elite and their ‘heavy in the pocket big business confederates,’ but does not appear to deliver a great deal for the somewhat lower in the pecking order ‘vote-lets’ citizen’s) of this State.

Why must we be law-driven compelled to vote at elections here in Tasmania, when as far as it goes for the man on the street and as I can see into this political convention, it’s not worth much more than a knoblet of Goat-scat.

Oh to hark back to the earlier times when the Westminster system consisted of some 600 independents, then to look at today’s offerings which has somehow and nowadays transformed into just 2 mainstream government representative party’s, tells me that somewhere along the wind propelled journey of this English system of government that had early arrived unto Australia’s shores, seems to have suffered a severe bout of some ‘poxious contagion’ that has since removed its major function of providing a sound healthy consideration of dedicated representation for and on behalf of this Country’s citizenry.

One looks at the individual Party leader of the Libs and Labs; one lot has the ridiculous Abbott who has claimed he tells the truth when and where he feels it is most needed, otherwise don’t take what I say as actually meaning much of anything, while in the other party we see that a paddock full of back-office individuals hold more power within their back-offices than is bestowed upon its leader.

Still and all I guess we must be luckier than those other Countries that don’t support such an onerous and burdening system of non-accountable, responsibility-dodging, highly remunerated perk-riddled Fat-cats.

Posted by William Boeder on 02/05/13 at 08:38 AM

The ENGOs are going to feel pretty stupid when they realise the only thing they’ve delivered is tougher laws for forest protesters and no real outcomes for high conservation forests in Tasmania. The only people laughing right now are Forestry Tasmania and the staunch anti-green warmongerers.

Posted by Felicity Holmes on 02/05/13 at 08:39 AM

16#,19#,21#,28# Tom, Rob and Steve Thank you for stating the much needed - the positive side in this rolling flood of condemnation. The knowledge base of people who read and do not comment will benefit
-re the gains and the legal pathway to undo them
- re the appalling and undemocratic words of the PM
-re the remnants that would be left if this opportunity was not taken up now and being ahead of the ‘lose-lose’ alternative
-re the Movement and its relentless struggle for a better planet
Another point that needs to be highlighted as it also influences the FSC process. The annual minimum sawlog quota is now reduced in law from 300,000 cm to 137,000 cm. That’s substantial and may even need to be adjusted further in future. Who knows.

Posted by Carol Rea on 02/05/13 at 08:44 AM

With humble acknowledgement to your photographic talent Rob Blakers, it is the very bad and the very ugly and very despoiled parts of Tasmania trashed by political willfulness over decades in Tasmania that needs to be highlighted. The legacy flaws of the David Llewellyns and the Paul Lennons and the Jim Bacons and the Michael Airds and the Robin Grays that need to be examined. Anna Krien highlights this willfulness in her book - ‘Into the Woods’ (2010).

Do you want the list of numerous deceptive scams over which Tasmania now trades to the world as Clean & Green & Clever? (This is the monika the Green Party gave to Tasmania.) When Tasmania allows the destruction of its forests, its rivers, water catchments, coastal areas, air quality and soils… Tasmania needs strong voices that rise from a sole Greens MP (Peg Putt) in 1998 and the courageous voices of a Kim Booth and a Bob Brown and a Christine Milne who stand against this scamming and appeasement (and compromising obedience)... these are some of the true Lorax MPs of Tasmania’s forests…. in my opinion.

Tasmania is poisoned and diminished by in-authentic, deceptive politics!

Those who have stood up against these business-as-usual politicians who legislate for the broadacre use of chemical that cause environmental and public health harm - use of endocrine drupting chemicals, carcinogens, persistent organic pollutants… look to the diseases in our beloved wildlife Mr Blakers and ask why? Why?!

No, I will not be standing for Parliament Bob Blakers - I stood as a support candidate when the Greens in Tasmania had a different kind of collective ethos and who respected pluarlism and diversity and… who listened.

Top-down processes of polity are repeatedly shown to be money and power-based games for people who like that egoism and engage inevitably in duplicity and corrupted processes.

If you’d like to see what was on offer in terms of alternatives Rob Blakers please read some submissions offered by ordinary Tasmanians to the Upper House Committee into the TFA Bill. There was another way but involve genuine social inclusion and a respect for truth & reconciliation.

And please remember the war dead - the over 35 forestry workers and forest protestors who have suicided in recent years because of this unresolved debilitating and shocking forest war. Call me naive, but there was another way….

Posted by David Obendorf on 02/05/13 at 09:24 AM

If the TFA is an “imperfect victory”, then it’s of the same order of peace as Neville Chamberlain’s in Munich.

The Bogan Queen and Burke have rushed to give it some sort of ersatz legitimacy while the logging industry is already avidly touting the use of an indefinite proportion of native forests as generator fuel.

If our logging industry had ever done anything scrupulously and in good faith, and if we had any institutions that could be trusted to enforce the law against, it might explain de kadt’s faith-based optimism.

John Hayward

Posted by john hayward on 02/05/13 at 09:27 AM

Steve Biddulph 28. Isn’t it strange that high conservation forests and tree plantations are both green, yet one is the product of chaos and the other a product of order? The green party idealizes (almost worships) one but only uses the other as a substitute. If the product of chaos is superior to the product of order then why do the greens promote an inferior biological outcome? Why do the greens embrace the life force and biological diversity in forests but not people? Why do they insist this diversity be constrained by lines on a map? On a more philosophical note, do the greens consider high conservation forests biologically ‘democratic’?
If forests are not ‘democratic’ shouldn’t the greens resolve this by not being ‘democratic’ themselves?

Posted by Karl Stevens on 02/05/13 at 10:34 AM

This is like reading Alice through the Looking Glass the stuff of pure fantasy to most people a win is a win, a win is to be celebrated. But this is no longer true for the more extremist the Greens a win is a loss, a disaster. Yet how could this be because this win, this win was negotiated and a compromise position reached by the combatants the more extreme Greens wanted total victory and the utter capitulation of their enemies. For them compromise is not only wrong it is utterly unforgivable, a sell-out, a collapse of every principle once held dear and those who accepted and agreed to the compromise are now for ever more rats and traitors.

What of course is happening is as old as the hills once a group is formed and it grows and changes it becomes entrenched it ossifies and it becomes more protective of its self and its continuity than it does of its principles and goals. Thus a win challenges the existence of the organization this is even more true when the entire reason for the ongoing life of the organization was based on ongoing conflict a win of this magnitude also challenges the well-established fiefdoms of its leadership team.
After a war the generals and admirals become redundant to the civil polity they are discarded, as they are seen as dangerous to the peace they fought and bled for. Likewise the foot soldiers are demobbed sent home with little or no fanfare and even fewer thanks soon to be forgotten.
Is there any wonder then that both the leadership of the National Greens and their “the Green infantry (HVEC,SWST, Code Green etc. who’ve done The Greens dirty work in forests for decades).(#17) are up in arms a screaming foul. What they wanted and demanded was total victory not a peace process. Their subsequent anger comes from their greatest fear which is irrelevance and that’s why they will keep fighting; they now have to defend their place in history because hopefully that’s where they are now heading into history. And like wartime leaders they go with the thanks of many but soon to be forgotten destined to become another chapter at best or footnote in our ongoing history.

Posted by Bazzabee on 02/05/13 at 10:36 AM

#7 Tom, there is no plan “B”. You can’t expect ideologists to consider anything other than themselves and their power greed. Name one policy ever put forward by an ideologist which had an alternative approach.

The Tas greens are steadily revealing the truth about themselves and no different to any of their political ilk. Mc Kim can’t even get together decent policies in other portfolio’s, so no hope when it comes to viable alternatives to forestry. Plan “B” could look like this.

Stop all clear felling and plantation growth. Use present plantation timber for building and only allow a select few radiata plantations to maintain the industry as it is phased out over ten years. Develop a system which allows the growing and cutting of specialty timbers in forest stands which are organised so they reduce fire storm events, an easy thing to do.

Develop products from the untapped potential of Tas native flora as foods, medicines and other products. Managed in the right way would see increases in forest cover, low fire risks and extremely sustainable supplies. State forests and national parks could be surrounded and dotted with fire resistant plantings. Blackwood is one which would not only slow any fires out of forests, but provide a steady stream of unique woods for the craft industries future. As current hardwood plantings are felled, they can be turned into multi species plantations, or sown with hemp for paper, fabric, oils or dedicated seed oil plants to be used as fuel to replace diesel.

Native pepper and native cherry plantations would be a new very successful gourmet industry, along with many other plants which could be developed into commercial production. This way we would save many species from extinction under the FT destructive idiocy, preserve our native forests and the environment for future good use and for tourism. Old forestry tracks can be utilised for tourist trails, education walks and working forestry experiences. People seeing us use our forests responsibility and helping them grow, but getting lots of goodies out of them, will certainly send a message to the world that we are heading in the right direction.

Shut forestry Tasmanian down and fully audit their books. Then open a new non bureaucratically controlled department run by real people, which is scientifically orientated to conservation and value adding of as many native species as possible. So it makes a profit for the people and not just the corporate elites.

Posted by A.K. on 02/05/13 at 10:36 AM

#34 - Whoa Felicity, that is patently wrong and untrue.
There are some conservation wins in the Bill.
500,000ha of HCV forest is now protected. In law.
These reserves move from FT to Parks and Wildlife and have all logging licences and Forest Practices plans cancelled.
The WHA is expanded by 170,000ha regardless of any other developments.
The sawlog quota is cut from 300k/cu/m to 137,000.
This isn’t spin. It’s in the legislation that the HoA has passed.
So to say that there are “no real outcomes for high conservation forests in Tasmania” is flatout wrong.

Posted by tom de kadt on 02/05/13 at 10:39 AM

#31Luke Vanzino: I will be supporting of a hardline Balkans style war in the forests until the areas of State Forest are restored back to the rightful regime, Forestry Tasmania.
There is no way the removal of WPZ’s and particularly STZ’z can benefit any future for production forestry no matter how limited the industry remains during our lifespan (30 years)

I will be voting for Mr Hodgeman at the next State election in March 2014, who will be expected to scrap the current land exchange component of the divisive TFA arrangement.
All matters of State owned land will be in accordance with the legislation provided through the current Regional Forest Agreement 1997-2017.
A review is mandatory leading up to the 2017 deadline.

Possibly the only monies to be returned to the Federal government would be from DPWIE whose administration would be removed from TFA Act for “defaulted” State Forests currently subjected as Interim Reserves by Premier Lara Giddings
Restored peace among the forest industry groups is essential.

I would expect that extreme Green rebels such as HVEC under Commandant Jenny Webber and Markets for Change under troublesome Peg Putt would continue to protest regardless of any final outcomes, simply cancel their passports and keep them under close surveillance within the nation.

Posted by Robin Halton on 02/05/13 at 11:02 AM

Follow the Money.

This whole compromise is over Taxpayers money as vital as ever to prop up this busted business.

No questions or solutions as to how to fix it; just keep it on the drip.

They will never get FSC approval to cut down native forests unless they infiltrate and buy the system.

Hall flicked another 50,000 acres on the Western Tiers into the mix at the last minute, touch it and FSC accreditation if you ever get it will be gone for ever.

Hall you cannot log a World Heritage Listed Karst and get FSC and you cannot buy FSC.

We are watching.

Posted by john hawkins on 02/05/13 at 12:17 PM

#40 - AK I agree with most of what you wrote. However, my question is how to bridge a nice idea and reality. The Greens in govt can’t just wander into FT and close it. Therefore, the consideration is, what can you do? What can you achieve?
The ideal is almost never acheiveable so it comes down to the art of the possible.
That is, by the slimmest of margins, what the TFA is.
Rather than hysterics about what it doesn’t do, it would be great if a single TT reader could at least concede what it does do.
Still hoping…

Posted by tom de kadt on 02/05/13 at 12:21 PM

Mr De Kadt, Mr Blakers & others ...

Here is a tangible example of why people are disillusioned, have lost trust & feel very insecure about which direction the Mckim faction may take the party now.

Is there a better example of schizoid behaviour from a political party?

Why wouldn’t Green voters & supporters be disillusioned Nick?

And the Green groupies wonder why people are, as Christine Milne said…“scratching their heads”

Posted by Pilko on 02/05/13 at 12:45 PM

#41 Sorry, Tom de Kadt, wrong, the Regional Forest Agreement 1997-2017 overrides the Tasmanian Forest Agreement as far as land transactions are concerned.

Wait and see the flaws in the TFA Act, sure splurge the Federal money but I am afraid for the sake of the not so smart Greens, they have been conned into thinking new national parks will result from areas of State Forest currently listed as undefined HVC status.

The proper legislation will be followed up as the governments enthusiasm wanes as the real truth becomes public.

Why, the government both State and Federal know the deal is dodgy and neither deserve to be re elected through lack of trust.

The whole deal is a political swindle to primarily appease particular sectors of both conservation movement and industrial forestry.

Posted by Robin Halton on 02/05/13 at 12:56 PM

Those who are congratulating themselves on this “victory” remind me of those who celebrate on receiving an email from Nigeria offering millions of dollars.

The rest of us will keep up the campaign until there are no more Tasmanian trees turned into atmospheric carbon, no more monoculture plantations, no more clearfelling and no more burn-offs of forest waste.

We must continue to fight for biochar by pyrolysis instead of the unhealthy burning of forest waste, whole-of-catchment management as an underpinning principle, a ban on the export and import of non-FSC timber and timber products and for the repeal of the PMAA.

The forestry industry was killed by a process that began forty years ago, and this Agreement is merely an attempt to turn it into a zombie instead of a corpse.

It is interesting that, whereas McKim and Pullinger and the other pro-Agreement forces only want to stop us protesting, Robin Halton (#42), who is against the Agreement, wants to confiscate our passports. It is when both sides are against me that I feel most at home.

That just shows that you (and the uNGOs and Greens) are in the minority and wrong.

No matter, what has come to ‘pass’ under Nick McKim will cause the Tasmanian Greens to go the way of the Australian Democrats under Meg Lees at the very next available opportunity.

Amazing, and I thought the Tas LibLabs were complete ninkumpoops yet they have got the cash, secured the ongoing welfare jobs for the bruvvers, made sure the native forests continue to be logged, and seen to the total and utter demise of their worst enemy in one foul swoop.

The leader of the Australian Greens, Christine Milne called the amended Forest Agreement “dead” and stated that the House of Assembly 30 April recall was “picking over a dead carcass”.

She talked of people shaking their head” in disbelief.

Tasmanian Greens head office, you have a problem ... could I suggest, in one of your main principles of governance - trust, credibility and authenticity.

Posted by David Obendorf on 02/05/13 at 01:37 PM

#45 - Rick, nothing has changed, Nick has said nothing to make you think that the Greens now “regard” protestors “as a ‘fringe’ problem”. It’s not true.
If you’re basing your assumption / evidence on a single conservation with a single young greens staffer, say so.
It’s disingenous to extrapolate that to some huge, non-existent shift.
#46 - Robin, I don’t know if you’re a lawyer but the very thorough advice I have is that the TFA trumps the RFA. Maybe that’s for lawyers/judges to decide. But point is: is there not a single aspect of this Bill you can bring yourself to be positive about?

Posted by tom de kadt on 02/05/13 at 01:52 PM

I support Jenny Webber and Miranda Gibson’s criticism that the TFA Act fails to guarentee reserves and share their disapointment of signatory groups (stated in the Mercury, 2 May 2013, ‘Activists vow to fight on’).

In the TFA Act, a total of 504,012 ha of forests are proposed to be reserved but only 88,650ha (the southern parts of the proposed World Heritage Area extension) can be formally reserved straight way by the government. A further 35,000ha of the proposed WHA can only be reserved if Forestry Tasmania attains FSC certification (probably two years away).

A further 271,549 ha of the first tranch has a raft of conditions and caveats including:
- must not be reserved before 1 October 2014;
- cannot be reserved until FT receives FSC certification;
- a total of 42 logging coupes have been excised;
- prior to final reservation, forestry activities other than tree felling are permitted e.g. road construction and instalation of cable logging infrastructure;
- if either house of the parliament thinks that there has been too many protests or bad publicity in the markets then the reserves can be refused;
- if they are reserved then 24 coupes can be logged for specialty timber.

108,813ha is in a second tranch which will not even attain ‘proposed reserve status’ until March 2015.

The grassroots conservation groups which have campaigned for years for reserves in the Tarkine region, the north-east, Weilangta, Bruny Island and elsehere will be gutted to hear that these areas cannot be reserved until after the state election, which makes their reservation very unlikely.

If the Liberals win the April 2014 state election they are committed to no further reserves and if the Green/Labor alliance wins there is no legal requirement nor any political imperative for them to create reserves. Why would Labor want more reserves if the forest industry has its money, wood guarantees, a weakened forest practices system and possibly FSC certification?

They will deliver more reserves only if we keep demanding it - stay quiet and you are guaranteed nothing.

Peter McGlone
Director, Tasmanian Conservation Trust
0406 380 545

Posted by Peter McGlone on 02/05/13 at 03:26 PM

On the face of it the statement by the Prime Minister as quoted by Christine Milne is disgusting and a serious assault on our cherished basic freedoms.

“The obligation is on the signatories that first came together, the parties that started this process, to do everything they can to use their abilities to silence those who haven’t gone with the mainstream consensus.”

I sincerely hope the Prime Minister didn’t use these words in the sense which jumps out at one on first reading. If she did, I’d be joining Christine in her censure in the most strenuous manner I could muster.

But possibly she wasn’t meaning “to silence” in the sense of using standover tactics and doing all possible to banish dissident groups to the Gulag.

She may have intended to indicate that those who eventually signed on to this problematic Act were duty bound to ensure through their ongoing actions that the intent of the signatories’ agreement is implemented. Meaning that 504,012ha of forest is indeed granted permanent protection under the Nature Conservation Act, and that Forestry Tasmania is indeed compelled to lift their game to the level which justifies FSC certification.

This is a big ask, and the usual cynics will rule the possibility out from day one. And I can’t with any honesty say that they are wrong. But if the conservation aims of the agreement do come to pass, there is every chance that most of the critics will be “silenced” by their own choice, because most of the reasons for serious protest will have evaporated. That sort of “silencing” will eventually be nothing but good for the Tasmanian community.

I have had a bit of contact with the so-called “mainstream” ENGOs and ET member groups throughout this process and also with some of the parliamentary Greens. And two things were constantly apparent.

Firstly, no one regarded the decision to sign on to the original agreement as easy to make. And with the LegCo amendments things only got worse. Individuals’ opinions oscillated day by day. Including my own. Last Sunday night I said “don’t”. By midday Monday I had become convinced it was worth a go. It was that close a thing.

Now I will be regarded by many as a complete dickhead for being so wishy-washy. They have their opinion that the whole thing was crap from day one, either being illegitimate or having no chance of success. Possibly they are right, but history should be the judge. At this point in time I choose to have a little more hope.

Now that the deal is sealed I hope people don’t continue to try to pull the thing down unless they can point to a demonstrably better way of achieving the same potential results in the same timescale.

I’m not referring to George aka, Gutwein and the like. It’s obvious what they will do. I mean those with some environmental sensibility. There actually is a chance that this will work. So it’d be damn good if most of us tried to ensure that it does.

The second thing which stuck out in all the discussions is that there is no way that groups like Huon Valley Environment Centre and Still Wild Still Threatened are regarded within the movement as “fringe”. That is a media construct and it also suits the Liberals to throw it around parliament in a derisory sense.

In fact these people are our brothers and sisters in the fight for better environmental outcomes. Currently they are doing the stuff we did when we were a bit younger, and might do again if everything goes pearshape. There is no tribal feeling of “I’m mainstream, you’re not”. There are simply differences of opinion over the best way to go about our aims. And these change with time amongst all of us, regardless of whether the media likes to lump us in with the “mainstream” or the “fringe”.

All opinions are valid and respected. From what I know there will be no attempts to “silence” anyone except by force of logical argument. And as a precondition to that we need to tick off a few milestones in making this damn thing work.

Posted by Neil Smith on 02/05/13 at 03:56 PM

Definition of a good deal:
An agreement where both parties walk away unhappy with the result?

Posted by Cleaver on 02/05/13 at 04:32 PM

There are now many examples of schizoid behaviour from political parties in Tasmania. That’s the way Tasmania acquires Commonwealth money. It used to be that that behaviour was limited to the Liberals nd Labor but now it has also infected the Tasmanian Greens and Rick Pilkington point out.

It is always a scam to pretend to any constituent that the pollie is with you - polite, condescending and false. They need to hear what you’ve got to say; at least Lara Giddings used to show her prejudices - suffering conservationists prattling on to her with a pout and a stoney-face.

I would argue that it is a behaviour of most politicians who suffer their voter-fools gladly and then decide from a smaller cabal of silo-thinkers where they exert their power.

You will note in the next 12 months the Tasmanian Greens incumbent MPs will be more fiesty to give the impression that they have found their community advocacy voices again. It works on the clear belief that voter memory is short-lived and smiles on the dial of a politician catches the votes… irrespective of the history of the MPs performance.

Welcome to Tazmania! And think about how you cast your vote… if you decide to vote formally.

Posted by David Obendorf on 02/05/13 at 04:39 PM

tom de kadt 16. You ask ‘How can it be better to achieve nothing than something like these undeniable wins?’ Valid point but isn’t that why the Greens blocked the first carbon trading scheme in the senate and voted with the Liberals to defeat it?

Posted by Karl Stevens on 02/05/13 at 04:44 PM

The first victim in any war is truth. What I loathed about the established parties and once admired in the Greens was that the Greens did not let spin displace truth. But I use the past tense.

tom de kadt you should be ashamed of yourself. Your comments are nothing more than spin. You should disclose your position as a Green’s adviser with your signature.

Nick McKim’s Green Team (has his ego no bounds) has failed the test of playing with the nasty and vastly more politically talented and astute vested interests. There are some things worth dying in a political ditch for and the Mulder amendments were one of them.

The Greens, with the exception of Booth, have been both conned and now exposed as politically ineffectual.

Nick, you now own a problem you cannot fix and the default position in the absence of a solution is worse than the status quo.

Further you have allowed the conservation movement in Tasmania to split, a process that began when you were silly enough to accept the token ministry (in which you haven’t performed well).

The recovery of a unified voice and movement will require your removal. Your credibility and also the general view of your competence, as exemplified by the posts on these pages, is such that other leadership must be found.

Posted by Who the hell do I vote for now? on 02/05/13 at 05:26 PM

#50 Mr de kadt - Greens staffer/apparatchik.

Firstly I apologise for not being a mushroom.

Yesterday in response to questions from journalists about critics of the Tas Greens passage of the TFA Nick Mckim said…..........“There are large numbers of people in the conservation movement who are backing us in… and I make the other point that Environment Tasmania represents the overwhelming majority of environment groups in our state and therefore backing in the position taken by four out of the five Greens MPs yesterday.”

I ask readers to consider Mckim’s language.

Mckim is making a distinction & identifying the Tasmanian Greens with TFA signatory Environment Tasmania’s majority of Environment groups. The mob that hung Rosa, Ghandi & Mandela out to dry when Nick leapt to their defence 5 months ago.

The longer I read this the more a certain group of individuals appear in my mind as the page boys holding the train on the emperours new cloths.

Enjoy the view of that hairy arse, because you are destined to be looking at it for a very long time.

Posted by Simon Warriner on 02/05/13 at 06:43 PM

So Russell #48, all minorities are wrong?

Pilko #48, nothing wrong in my view with divergences of opinion, and I most certainly have not heard ET, the Greens, TWS etc call anyone “fringe”. Julia Gillard’s quoted statement to “silence” dissenters was foolish, in my view uncharacteristic, and has found no support from anyone, let alone anyone in the environmental movement. It also, of course, applies as much to those in the logging industry who don’t like this outcome as to groups who campaign for forest protection!

And Emma #29, and Tim #47, apologies for a comment encouraging a career in parliament for critics, it came from the sense that those who complain about this far from perfect outcome have had decades of utterly tragic and ongoing loss of wild forests to make a difference. But it has not happened.

The perfect can be the enemy of the good, and to outline a perfect vision is fine but if it doesn’t gain a foothold, or if it happens too slowly and forests are still falling, then we need somehow in the mean time to protect those forests. I repeat, we have been fighting for and losing the best of Tasmania’s oldgrowth forests for close on 50 years. In a few more years the remnants would so diminished as to be not be worth the fight.

Posted by Rob Blakers on 02/05/13 at 07:01 PM

Why do I have the strong feeling that this is all a scam? Maybe it’s the strong smell of sulphur in the air.

Posted by RJ Peak on 02/05/13 at 07:33 PM

Anyone else notice the LibLab-like backdrop wallpaper used by McKim in the photo?

Nick McKim’s Green Team. Words mean nothing Nick.

Posted by Russell Langfield on 02/05/13 at 08:00 PM

#50, Tom De Kadt. I hope you didn’t pay anything, including attention, to your “very thorough (legal) advice” that the TFA trumps the RFA.

You should have noticed that PAL managed to effectively trump a raft of environmental and planning laws despite being nothing but a policy.

As are many other backward and degenerate societies, Tasmania is run by backward and degenerate people, rather than laws.

John Hayward

Posted by john hayward on 02/05/13 at 08:07 PM

Karl, #55, fair point. However, the first CTS was in fact so bad that it could have achieved nothing. The second, whilst immeasurably better, is still a very long way from ideal and is perhaps more analogous to this legislation. To do nothing whilst awaiting a third scheme which might be “practically perfect in every way” would be to fiddle whilst Rome burns.

And Felicity #34, as pointed out by Tom, this deal does bring immediate gains. Without the Agreement and the process by which it came about there would be no World Heritage Area Extension nomination, and one that has every likelihood of acceptance, currently underway. It would simply not have happened. And if this Legislation had been rejected the chances of the nomination being successful would be very slim indeed. Lune River, Hartz, the Weld, Picton, Florentine, Styx, Butlers Gorge, Navarre, Gt Western Tiers, Mole Ck karst and Dove River are all included here. A lot of people have campaigned for many years for these places. This is the first tranche and we have to work to make sure that the other areas in the 504,000ha are also given protection.

Peter #51, You state that “If the Liberals win the April 2014 state election they are committed to no further reserves and if the Green/Labor alliance wins there is no legal requirement nor any political imperative for them to create reserves. Why would Labor want more reserves if the forest industry has its money, wood guarantees, a weakened forest practices system and possibly FSC certification?”

A few point here. Firstly, that’s not exactly what the Liberals said. They said that they would undo the reserves of this agreement, not just add no new ones. If they happen to have the numbers in a year’s time they could rescind new national parks (or indeed old ones!) with little more effort than would be required to rescind a Conservation Order. Effectively there is little difference in the delayed time-frame. Additionally, FSC certification will certainly not be in place in 12 months from now. However, the process of trying to gain that certification will by definition work towards remedying what you have quite rightly expressed concern over, forest practices. Until the industry has FSC they do not have a product that the market wants.

Posted by Rob Blakers on 02/05/13 at 08:46 PM

Tom de Kadt is merely verbalising the mantra of the Tasmanian Greens position as a paid staffer… (that’s right isn’t it Tom?). It gives Tom a raison d’etre and keeps the Greens MPs out of the TT frey! Cassy anf Nick just read the TT blogs.

They take the view we’re all just crabby munchkins who will get over this ‘difference of opinion’ and still vote for them in March 2013 because (1) we have to vote (or get fined) (2) we have no one else to vote for and (3) we’ll forget this split amongst the top escheleons of the Greens Party and Labor’s humilation of the forest front-line activists like HVEC, SWST, Jenny Weber and Miranda Gibson by Lara Giddings in Tasmania.

I’d like to offer my position from a vested and narrow interest, freshwater lobsters. I’ve read all the comments, most have merit, but there’s a common thread….. there seems to be more interest in how the game is played instead of why it’s played. Anyone who thinks there wont be caveats and spin and back peddling and legalese is kidding themselves. Of course there will be shafting, its how the process works. Of course there’s been political backroom strategies, but what’s the alternative. Take it from me, we have had no reserves put on areas where substantial populations of lobsters have been found until this agreement. The tarkine is not the panacea for lobsters, never has been and never will be. It’s the areas outside the tarkine that are the most important, and I’ve been deafened by the silence on the Black, Flowerdale, and Dip catchment’s. In fact, they would’ve missed the boat except for some serious dummy spitting. Most catchments were under immediate threat from land clearing, at least there’s some breathing space, and I would say…at long last, some areas that are reserved for this important animal. What was the alternative .....status quo and watch the areas get eroded, so you tell me, do you take what you can get, or do you postulate and spruik theories while Rome burns. I’ve seen this go on for 15 years, and trust me, we didn’t have another 15 years to sit around and offer informed, intelligent debates and throw poison darts. I’ve also heard the theory that private land is somehow more important as a biodiversity region. As far as giant freshwater lobsters go that is the biggest load of rubbish I have ever heard. I am prepared to debate this point with whoever and whenever, because its simply fairyland. To those who say some have laid down and should be ashamed, fine, stick to your guns. I’ve seen plenty roll over in my time, not withstanding the Recovery Plan debates where it was said “we mightn’t get what we want, but at least its signed”. Personally I’m disappointed that there are people coming left right and centre with vitriol. Hey, do you really think we don’t have the bush at heart. How about some of you pull back a bit and understand the fact that a lot of us have dealt with this crap for decades and saw an opportunity to get somewhere. Ask yourselves what else has been achieved in the last 20 years. The last major agreement was the RFA, lobsters were a priority species…and…nothing .... like I said, we didn’t have another 20 years, so go ahead, throw your darts and call me naïve ...but offering opinions and theories that are little more than hope against those who run the show is like throwing paperwork at a bulldozer, there’s lots of fancy words and intelligentsia on the paper, but at the end of the day it means &%#& all to the bulldozer.

Posted by Todd Walsh on 02/05/13 at 10:16 PM

Rob Blakers 63. Australia only has about 1% of the world population so anything we do is hardly fiddling while Rome burns. Coal exports continue as normal so Clive Palmer reckons.
How is the collapse of the Tasmanian landclearing industry ‘Rome burning’? All the greens have done is marry the industry and then give it mouth to mouth. Just like they blew our money on Gunns.

Posted by Karl Stevens on 02/05/13 at 11:10 PM

Todd, the people that failed the giant freshwater lobsters were individuals like Kim Evans [DPIPWE Secretary] that controlled that Recovery Plan fiasco for the lobster all those years ago.

Todd, you ask ‘why is the game played that way’? Could I suggest that it might be because FT and this industry were the bullies in the bush and public servants were obedient to authority.

They just obediently followed orders and never had any empathy for these crustaceans.

I’m one of those people who has dealt with this ‘crap for decades’ too but I would have allowed this greedy, native forest logging industry to collapse - not prop it up with another huge load of dollars.

Lets just see how much secure forest reserve is created out of what Nick McKim describes as a “manifestly imperfect” Bill.

Posted by David Obendorf on 02/05/13 at 11:26 PM

Tasmanian Forestry Peace Deal – Should we Support it?

Yes, yes, yes, that is - if it is real, the parties stick to it, and the Feds back it.

Is it perfect – no. Are we going to get a better outcome – no.

First let’s look briefly at what the Tasmanian Forestry Agreement is.

For the first time since the ill fated ‘Salamanca Talks’ of 1989, environmentalists and industry sat across a table and talked turkey on what they wanted, what they were prepared to give up, and ‘where to from here’ for the forest industry. These talks were not initiated by government but by the parties themselves. On this occasion industry approached the conservation movement.

The Tasmanian forest industry is in serious trouble and has now reached a cross roads. I will explore the reasons for this, how we got here, and what happens if nothing happens, in my next post.

Whatever the ultimate outcome Tasmania can be proud of the talks and of the agreement. Two groups of people with diametrically opposed objectives and long histories of conflict spanning over three decades, spent two years in talks seeking a way forward. I know of no-where else in the world where similar talks have resulted in agreement.

There were spats, leaks, and walkouts, but that’s the stuff of real life. During that time the State’s biggest timber company collapsed, a former Director of the Wilderness Society ended up managing a (now closed) woodchip mill, lots of logging contractors went bust, conservative politicians did all they could to undermine any agreement, and forests kept falling.

From the conservation side negotiators continued to talk while timber interests targeted and felled world heritage value forests that were key to conservation concerns. From the industry side negotiators continued to talk while conservationists ran international campaigns to persuade markets not to purchase certain Tasmanian timber products. Again, such is life.

The talks revealed deep divisions within and between different conservation groups, and within and between different industry interests. It is no longer meaningful to talk simply of conservation versus industry. The talks revealed multiple interests with multiple view points. Never-the-less an agreement has been reached and signed by the parties.

The agreement has the potential to:
• end thirty years of conflict that has harmed the social fabric of a small community;
• provide certainty for business by better defining the available resource; and
• protect significant tracts of some of the most important wilderness forests on the planet.

The agreement does in itself prevent construction of a plantation based pulp mill should a financial backer for this project be found.

The Federal Government has already shovelled out millions of your hard earned to assist logging contractors sans any agreement for conservation. However more funds will likely be needed to buy out some interests. In the national context these are trivial sums but the Feds are penny pinching in preparation for a tight budget post GFC stimulus spending (although they continue to spend-up big on pet projects like the national broadband network, and amphibious warfare vessels).

Legislation backing the forestry agreement has passed the lower house (House of Assembly) of the State Parliament with the support of the Labor/Green coalition. However it must also pass the upper house (Legislative Council). The Legislative Council is famously conservative and has already held its own inquiry into these issues. If they throw out the legislation or seriously compromise its outcomes, we are back to the trenches. I will explore what that means in my next post.

Cont ...

Posted by Erik Peacock on 03/05/13 at 07:17 AM

Will the agreement hold? The State Liberal (read conservative) party has, for base political reasons, reversed its own policy on forest protection. They want to throw out the agreement in its entirety and will take this “policy” to the next election.

The mainstream environmental NGOs cannot prevent individuals or small community groups from protesting. Conservative commentators will jump on this as proof of a conspiracy and ill-will from the ‘never satisfied insatiable extreme greens who want to destroy civilisation as we know it and close down all our industries.’ If a logger stubs their toe in the forest it will be touted as proof of an eco-terrorist conspiracy (yawn). In reality small protest groups are nothing new. Without strong public support, sound leadership, institutional backing, and a clear and compelling cause, they fizzle out. Remember the “Abolish the Family Court Party”? Of course you don’t! Some people though are going to have to grow up, realise you don’t always get everything you want in life, and that compromise also take courage.

That doesn’t mean that conversations about how to do forestry better or differently will not continue. My hope though is that people will no longer be sitting up trees for months, getting dragged out from under forestry machinery and thrown into prison, or asking international companies not to buy our products. I don’t want my kids to be part of that kind of conflict 15 years from now.

I am a deep green. I have knelt under the blade of a bulldozder. I am prepared to lose some forests for the sake of peace. Let’s make this agreement real and move on. Let’s have peace this Christmas.

Posted by Erik Peacock on 03/05/13 at 07:18 AM

It’s a long way to Tipperary, or so the song goes, and with so many ducks to line up I doubt if Milne will be prooved wrong and the reservations will fail to materialize.

Of course the broken forestry industry may remain broken as industry wide FSC will not appear before March 2014 when the wrecker Liberals might come to government under with a promise to scrap this policy.

It would be an act of faith for FIAT to go beyond silencing the Liberals and change their policy but I guess both sides have fringes Gutwein, Hodgman, Harriss and Hall being the frontmen for theirs

Indeed, they have assured us there can be no Green Liberal accord, agreement or coalition of any kind after March 2014 let alone if Abbott fails to win in September.

For those disaffected from the Greens consider the alternative, because if you lie doggo and it comes to pass you will only have yourselves to blame.

For those of us who believe there can only be better outcomes from continuing to campaign I feel it won’t be long before the old habits of this industry resurface as the nightmare those who support this agreement don’t want.

Posted by phill Parsons on 03/05/13 at 08:05 AM

The Tasmanian Greens and ENGO signatories to the Tasmanian Forest Agreement (TFA) have been desperately trying to present the passage of the Bill as a positive conservation outcome but my review of the legislation and in particular the Upper House amendments, shows that the conservation outcomes will be worse than if the Bill had failed to pass.

Approximately 504,000 hectares of reserves will be provided immediate temporary protection upon the enactment of the TFA Act of which 121,756 hectares are included in the Federal Government’s proposed extension to the Tasmanian Wilderness World Heritage Area by 172,050 hectares which is a Federal matter entirely separate from the TFA process.

These 121,756 hectares will receive formal protection if the nomination is ratified by UNESCO when its World Heritage Committee meets from 16th to 27th June 2013.

If UNESCO fails to ratify the nomination the 121,756 hectares will then re-join the 504,000 hectares of reserves provided temporary protection under the TFA Act.

However all the reserves provided temporary protection under the TFA Act will lose their temporary protected status on 1 October 2014 unless:

1. the Nature Conservation Minister has received advice from Forestry Tasmania that it has obtained Forest Stewardship Council certification; and

2. both Houses of Parliament accept the proposed reserves based upon a determination from the Nature Conservation Minister which includes a durability report obtained from the (industry dominated) Special Council which is to contain advice as to whether there has been substantial active protests or substantial market disruption since the previous durability report or, if there is no previous durability report, since the commencement of the Act

In effect this means that for the reserves to receive formal protection a majority of both Houses of Parliament are required to vote in favour in 17 months’ time. Given the disdain towards the environment by the current crop of politicians it beggars belief that even the most ardent optimist could consider such an outcome likely.

There is no requirement for any incoming Government to repeal the TFA Act for the reserves to lose their protected status on 1 October 2014 as this will occur by default if either House fails to accept the determination and/or durability report.

It therefore seems obvious that the only reserves which have any lasting hope of formal protection from logging and mining are those 121,756 hectares contained within the Federal Government’s proposed extension to the Tasmanian Wilderness World Heritage Area but even that is not a certainty given objections have been made including a member of one of the signatories to the TFA (which appears to breach the durability provisions contained within the Act).

Furthermore, most areas granted protection from logging under the TFA Act will still be open to mining.

To be continued

Posted by PB on 03/05/13 at 08:31 AM

Continued

The Act will also lock in numerous other detrimental outcomes such as:

• Multi-million dollar taxpayer funded “compensation” to Ta Ann Tasmania to reduce wood supply volumes from 265,000 to 160,000m3 per annum when Forestry Tasmania was unable to sustain the long term supply it had contracted to provide even before the creation of any new reserves. Inexplicably, the Integrity Commission saw no need to investigate the fact that these contracts were signed when Evan Rolley, currently Executive Director at Ta Ann Tasmania was Managing Director of Forestry Tasmania.

• The provision of a further $112.4M upfront of Federal taxpayer funded assistance to the forest industry.

• The survival of Ta Ann Tasmania, a company which uses products it claims are residue which would otherwise be woodchipped but in reality are future sawlogs and whose parent company is accused of being deeply embedded in systemic corruption and breach of human rights in Sarawak.

• Intensification of logging in remaining wood production areas due to watering down of the Forest Practices Code which will become subservient to wood supply quotas.

• Continuation of “minimum” wood supply quantities which provide for no redress when they are exceeded.

• The establishment of a Special Council (dominated by industry representatives) which does not represent the public interest or have the authority under common law to determine the future use of public land.

• Unprecedented silencing provisions which prevent formal protection of reserves if durability is disrupted by “substantial active protest” (defined as an activity that has a negative material impact on forest operations legally carried out or on any processing of timber legally carried out) or “substantial market disruption” (defined as an activity that has a negative material impact on the sale of legally harvested Tasmanian timber)

• The locking in of Forestry Tasmania with the aid of over $100M of ongoing taxpayer funded support as the body responsible for wood production which has been logging native forests at double the sustainable rate and has a long standing track record of duplicity and obfuscation rendering void any so-called commitment to avoid logging areas nominated for protection.

• The potential subversion of international FSC principles in order to provide Forestry Tasmania with FSC certification whilst it continues its archaic clearfell, burn and sow regime (which will be fully supported by ENGOs according to their evidence to the Legislative Council Select Committee).

The intent of the Upper House amendments is clearly demonstrated by the following report in the Examiner of an email exchange between Tony Mulder MLC and a disgruntled pro-forestry activist published on her Facebook account.

In the heated exchange with well-known anti-deal campaigner Kelly Wilton, Mr Mulder said the deal was “crap’’ and “`guaranteed to fail’‘.

He writes: “`So let’s get some fed dollars, watch it fall over and then let the industry rebuild.’‘

In a later email, he explains that his intent is to demand the environmental signatories to the deal deliver on their end of the bargain before granting the asked-for 504,000 hectares of new reserves.

“My intent is to put them to the sword,’’ he writes.

By participating in the talks leading to the TFA, the Wilderness Society, Environment Tasmania and Australian Conservation Foundation have provided life assistance and taxpayer funded support to an industry that had imploded and was dead on its knees, had already reduced sawlog production to the revised quota forest due to Gunns exit and would by necessity of its own survival have restructured and significantly downsized its impact on our environment.

At the same time the ENGOs have been rendered mute on other threats to our environment such as mining and roading in the Tarkine wilderness and weakening of the permanent native forest estate policy to allow broadscale land clearance for dairy farm expansion at Woolnorth.

The ENGOs and Tasmanian Greens (with the exception of Kim Booth) failed to heed the sage advice of their elders such as Bob Brown, Christine Milne and Pegg Putt. As a result their credibility to represent environmental concerns is now in tatters and no amount of spin from their supporters will convince me otherwise.

Search for Tasmania Forest Agreement in Votes and Proceedings and then open the documents - No. 139 TUESDAY 30 APRIL 2013

Posted by PB on 03/05/13 at 08:46 AM

Re #59
No, but in this case, absolutely yes.

McKim also states that ET represents the majority of Tasmanian conservation groups. That’s wrong too, because most groups have long disassociated themselves from ET since the SoP sham was revealed two or three years ago. How can they represent anyone when they have no members and never once consulted them when they did? For that matter when did McKim ever consult Green members?

Re #65
Has anything changed? Will anything change? Nothing, as far as I can see. It’s all just promises, ifs and maybes except for the logging welfare payments.

Re #68
“I know of no-where else in the world where similar talks have resulted in agreement.”

Try Finland and the now protected reindeer forests. I bet others can come up with more just as positive outcomes elsewhere. Tasmania’s ‘deal’ is negative and achieves nothing concrete for conservation.

Re #69
“The mainstream environmental NGOs” never once consulted their members therefore they aren’t mainstream and definitely NOT representative of any conservationalists.

“I am prepared to lose some forests for the sake of peace.” Go for a drive mate. You’ve already lost most of them before now.

Besides FSC will never be “given” let alone achievable.

Posted by Russell Langfield on 03/05/13 at 08:54 AM

Erik Peacock 69.
If the industry was in such serious trouble as you say why didn’t you greenies let it die?
What is sane about saving and re-energising a mortal enemy?
Your ideas are pathetic and childish in my view.

Posted by Karl Stevens on 03/05/13 at 09:07 AM

The whole process in relation to the Forestry Agreement was poorly conceived, using bribery with the cut off date changing constantly when decisions were not forthcoming also did not provide confidence in formulating of the Forest Agreement. Already the Tasmanian economy has been drained through Industrial Welfare being provided ; how much longer is this to continue?
The Legislative Council trashed the Forest Agreement legislation; however, they stated correctly in my opinion that peace has not been created.

The Liberal Party, likely to form the next State Government, are against the Forestry Agreement; presumably they are supported by a large segment of the community at present. The unlikely allies of the Liberals are some of the newer Green groups. Though the views of the Liberal Party and those of the new Green groups are mutually exclusive and conflict will continue regardless of which major Party wins the next election.

Posted by Keith Antonysen on 03/05/13 at 09:28 AM

It is time for a very public boycott of The Wilderness Society and Environment Tasmania. These environmental bureaucracies have lost their way and can no longer pretend to represent their membership.

Tasmania needs a new peak body that can honestly represent the fundamental principles of environmental protection and its implications for social justice.

Posted by Isla MacGregor on 03/05/13 at 09:44 AM

Dave# yep…you may well have appoint re letting it collapse, but you know as well as I that it wouldn’t have gone without taking huge swathes of bush with it, a la scorched earth policy…. I understand exactly where people are coming from, but what’s the alternative? ...has anyone got a major victory out there that we don’t know about…...and more to the point…. if some of you know how this “game” operates so well….. then why haven’t you achieved substantial outcomes yourselves ... if you’ve got an alternative that will do the right thing by our forests ...then do it…. I’d love it to happen, but I wont hold my breath…and take it on board….we’ve just about run out of time ... put up people ...the time for words is done…. it just doesn’t cut it anymore

Posted by Todd Walsh on 03/05/13 at 09:44 AM

We simply must not swap our democratic rights, our health and our economic well-being, let alone the future of our planet, for the illusion of peace and a revocable promise to save some forests.

Remember, this agreement comes with a plantation-fed and taxpayer-funded pulp mill attached.

Posted by Tim Thorne on 03/05/13 at 10:03 AM

Thank you Phil Parsons [comment #70] - “For those disaffected from the Greens consider the alternative”...

But what are the alternatives, Phil?

The ENGO’s have had their Neville Chamberlain moment…. peace in our time! But as others have explained their obedience to the powerful forestry lobby has made so many of us question their judgement.

I must be a klutz Phil, because the 4 Greens MPs voted with Labor to pass this TFA Act [13 votes to 11 votes], I cannot see any alternative apart from:

- continuing direct market action and civil protest,

- registering an informal protest vote, or

- voting for the Liberals (wash my mouth out with soap & water!)

One Green MP that would do well to now differentiate from the Tasmanian Greens Party is Kim Booth, the independent-Green politician.

Any other alternatives?

Posted by David Obendorf on 03/05/13 at 11:13 AM

So let me get this straight.

TT publishes a Flanno op-ed railing against both IGA and Gillard’s call to silence debate on the issue.

TT then refuses to post comments on Flanno op-ed?

Was this a condition of publication?

Expected better Linz.

Posted by Glebe Woman on 03/05/13 at 11:45 AM

I wanted to comment on the Richard Flanagan article, but was unable to do so.
Enjoy your ministerial perks while you still have them, McKim and O’Connor - you’ll probably be out .... next election for being the turncoat sell-outs that you are.
Thinking hard about how to vote next time around, but it won’t be for the washed-out Tas Greens. Kim Booth excepted, but he’s not in my electorate.
Disgraceful.

Posted by Artemisia on 03/05/13 at 11:47 AM

David Obendorf #67, your sentence “Lets just see how much secure forest reserve is created out of what Nick McKim describes as a “manifestly imperfect” Bill.” is one of the most sensible comments on this thread.

I don’t know if you meant it satirically. No one will be totally surprised if the amount turns out to be zero, if that’s what you were getting at.

But, yes, let’s just see. Instead of shooting off vitriol on day 3 (and 4 and 5) after an important milestone in the process why don’t we suspend decision-making and pointing the blame, and wait and see?

Better still, why don’t we try to make it happen?

Posted by Neil Smith on 03/05/13 at 11:55 AM

We need to remember why it’s so essential to the Govt and the loggers that TFA objectors are silenced.

It’s because the “social license” and FSC certification can only be achieved and retained through an appearance of consensus achieved by orchestrated lying. It’s the first time the LibLabs have been compelled to include their ostensible adversaries in their lies. Fortunately for them, quislings are thick on the ground.

John Hayward

Posted by john hayward on 03/05/13 at 01:58 PM

Comments # 52, 65, 67, 69, 70, we all can the hope the fullness of time will provide the promised IGA outcomes, though it does need the complicity of the hostile recalcitrant heavies in the State’s logging cabal.

There may be the notion that this IGA shambles could provide a way forward, however, if all that holds this agreement together is that embodiment called time and trust, can we countenance any of the words uttered by the historically black-hooded and black-bearded GBE of Forestry Tasmania, that has ever been and remains our hostile enemy?

Posted by William Boeder on 03/05/13 at 02:25 PM

PB#71-76.

You have nailed this very Political Solution to Tasmania and its forest wars.

More money for nothing, the industry will never give an inch and the wellwishers have wasted both their time and their Kudos.

Tasmania the mendicant cargo cult state will get the IGA money as our trusted pollies buy the votes of the brain dead ahead of the next election.

The industry will still be bust the players will still be cowboys, the future grim and the forest will never be locked up; but no one, but no one, must ever be told for this is a special Tasmanian secret.

Posted by john hawkins on 03/05/13 at 02:43 PM

Future mining a significant point….

‘Furthermore, most areas granted protection from logging under the TFA Act will still be open to mining.’

During the years that this TFA debacle has consumed eNGO activities the Tasmanian Public and Environmental Health Network (TPEHN) were unsuccessful in convincing any eNGO in Tasmania to develop a mining policy.

It is now blatantly clear that this reluctance was underpinned by the potential ramifications to their support for the TFA.

Posted by Isla MacGregor on 03/05/13 at 02:43 PM

So, Neil [comment #86]... here’s your question: “how to we make that happen?”

A Special Council under the TFA Act will adjudicate on native forest practices, special species harvesting, and various durability issues that might trigger a formal report to Parliament.

The TFA Act has prescribed some ways “we might make that happen”: No protests in the forests; no market action against Tasmanian wood products; and securing full FSC for Forestry Tasmania for its native forest logging practices.

ENGOs have already given direct support Ta Ann in overseas markets… and accepted that ‘a pulp mill’ for Tasmania to utilise the 300,000 ha of plantations.

Posted by David Obendorf on 03/05/13 at 03:14 PM

Comment #81 Todd Walsh
...“but what’s the alternative? ...has anyone got a major victory out there that we don’t know about…...and more to the point…. if some of you know how this “game” operates so well….. then why haven’t you achieved substantial outcomes yourselves ... if you’ve got an alternative that will do the right thing by our forests ...then do it….”

Yes you are simplistic as you began your comments at “#65. I’d like to offer my position from a vested and narrow interest,...”
Read Peter Brenner #8 and many times in months gone by, and read Peter Henning’s many contribution and Karl Stevens keeps it short and very pointy.
You have now the traditional YES - but deal…
The alternatives do not come from ignoring alternatives on offer for decades now.
The signatories have ignored such alternative scenarios and they also continued the simplistic, narrow interest play.
To assist you and others Todd:http://www.forestguild.org
and http://prosilvaeurope.org/?q=book/export/html/36
just to name 2 links, but I could provide a lot more if you dare to care to find out.

The deal is rotten in the core and the stench will not just blow away like the smoke clouds by Forestry Tasmania.
We will inform the people who care to ask for the truth, no matter how many glossy brochures and full page ads are wasted with another ‘Goebbels Propaganda Plan’ post TFA 2013.

Posted by Frank Strie on 03/05/13 at 03:29 PM

Plenty of to-and-fro stuff but few contributors .
Has the forests issue gone off the boil?

Posted by TGC on 03/05/13 at 03:33 PM

#93: Never, Trevor.

Posted by Tim Thorne on 03/05/13 at 04:17 PM

@ tom de kadt, you really ought to get your language right: Roosevelt, Churchill and Stalin had a “win”. Neville Chamberlain had a “compromise” (much to Czechoslovakia’s chagrin).

No prizes for knowing how that turned out, either, nor which best describes this situation.

I understand that saying “these clunking great Greens compromises” doesn’t sound nearly so great as “these clunking great Greens wins” does, but it’s far closer to the truth than your gushing rhetoric would have everyone believe.

Might be that you probably also meant “thumping great” rather than “clunking great”, although perhaps in this case a more accurate “wheels falling off the cart” impression is conjured up by the word “clunking”.

Posted by Alan Lesheim on 03/05/13 at 04:25 PM

Neil Smith comment leads the way I suspect in all of the above 93 comments ...

“Better still, why don’t we try to make it happen”?

If the Legco misfits can collectively emasculate an agreement then why cannot you,the critics, e.g. such as David, Frank, Peter cubed, John squared, Karl, Tim, Phil, Russell, PB, Pilko, etc etc create an input that will assist in a coordinated fashion.

Yes the legislation is a miscreant but why do you not band together and provide a consolidated input to the Special Council to the TFA instead of wasting your time with personal rants on TT that will achieve nothing of substance.

A name perhaps will help you all gell?

How about Critics Railing Against Politicians (CRAP), or Excised Greens Opposed to Stuff (EGOS), or I Know Everything About the Environment (IKEAE = plural of Ikea), or Valiant Architects Leading to Ultimate Environmentalism (VALUE).

I am sure I can do better with a couple more Liffey Valley Pinots!

Whilst the above is crafted with tongue in cheek why don’t you all have a think about a conjoined approach?

Or even Titans Gaining Consensus (TGC)???

I just threw up!

Posted by John Powell on 03/05/13 at 04:40 PM

After 3 years the NGO’s have achieved no up front conservation gains. Just a big what-if deal with a bunch of snakes dependent on gagging yourself, selling out your traditions & constituents.

What will be reserved up front has been secured by vocal critics of the TFA - The Federal Greens. Yet as Flanagan points out, “this in the face of initial opposition from NGO negotiators who worried it might damage their forest deal process”.

And all this time the greenies were telling me they had the loggers by the balls.

Well if that was truly the case then this final deal looks to me like the NGO’s have botched their advantage & snatched defeat from the jaws of victory.

Posted by Helen on 03/05/13 at 04:55 PM

Re #81
This post is a total cop-out. All your questions have been answered LONG AGO, you only have to read them.

I’m thinking you’re another in a long line of forestry trolls regurgitating the same old dog’s breakfast.

Weasel words are just about done Todd, actions speak louder. Take not-for-profit MIS, Gunns and forestry industry decimations for example.

Markets and clear thinkers have and will continue destroy anything these mendicants can implement.

Re #86
Neil, please read posts #71-76

Posted by Russell Langfield on 03/05/13 at 05:09 PM

Like #84,85 I, too, would have liked to have left a comment on Flanagan’s article. Excellent in my view. I have been feeling completely dumbfounded these past few days. Richard spells out why. “Own goal” surely sums it up.

I have shared this article on my Face Book page. Hopefully, it will go viral. Great for the world to see how easily we environmentalists can be shown to be gullible.

Posted by Peter Adams on 03/05/13 at 05:55 PM

Drink as much wine as you want John Powell (96) it wont help Forestry Tasmania get FSC certification when their main customer is an alleged criminal cartel from Sarawak.
Imagine if Nick McKim was Greens leader during the Franklin Dam dispute? There would be a dam there for sure and the Wilderness Society would be dragging protesters out of their rubber duckies. This deal is a disgrace and if you don’t understand ‘own goal’ ...

Posted by Karl Stevens on 03/05/13 at 06:57 PM

#27 I find it impossible to comprehend the comment by Rob Blakers that critics of this horrendous outcome, who have continually and persistently warned about what has actually occurred would take place, and who were comprehensively ignored (people like Karl Stevens), should stand for parliament instead of voicing their concerns.

In fact I find it reprehensible and a gross misrepresentation of the way that the Tasmanian political system operates.

The only way that it is possible for anyone to get elected to any parliament in Australia is to get endorsement from one of the three parties, close to the top of their ticket. There is no way that you can get endorsement if you have views which are critical of the party hierarchy, and if you don’t show a willingness to be a caucus flunky, especially after having served an apprenticeship of flunkiness in some patron’s electoral office or as a ministerial “adviser”.

So, should we all stay silent unless we add our names to the ballot for election? Should we all run for office because we dare to criticise those who Blakers doesn’t like to be criticised? What of those who criticise the ALP, the Liberals the so-called independent MLCs? should they all run for office as well?

Maybe Blakers should apply the same criteria to himself that he seeks to apply to others. How dare he take it upon himself to photo stuff which his political opponents mightn’t like without running for political office!

If Blakers wants any critics of his political allies to run for office then so should he. Otherwise, if he wants to maintain that absurd position he needs to tell us why he should be immune from his own strictures.

Posted by Peter Henning on 03/05/13 at 07:40 PM

I may not agree with everything Flanagan says, but I absolutely support his rejection of anyone’s attempt to silence me, especially when I express my opinion about a rotten, corrupt, dishonest process, it’s outcome, or the fools complicit in.

lest we forget, people.

Tyrants wear uniforms of many colours, including green.

Posted by Simon Warriner on 03/05/13 at 08:01 PM

Frank # 92 “The alternatives do not come from ignoring alternatives on offer for decades now.”....does that tell you anything champ? decades…. come on….do you think that it mightn’t be working???..........I may be simplistic, but at least I’ve played a role in achieving something over the last 15 years (30m buffers on lobster creeks ... special habitat conditions on logging in lobster habitat ...or is that cop out too) ... big words and condescending remarks mean sweet FA to me ...you keep reading, pointing out learned literature and having a considered opinion ...I’ll take sticking my neck out and getting a win here n there any day….and again….if people know so much about what should/could and can be done…then do it… frankly I’m tired of hearing the waffle…anyone can formulate a theory ...its putting it into practice that counts ....and so far I’m reading a hell of a lot of theories ... that frankly have come to not a lot over the “decades” that people keep bringing up

Posted by Todd Walsh on 03/05/13 at 09:13 PM

And yet, #94, nothing new. Nor will there be- anti-forestry positions are ‘concreted’ in and the ominous 7.30 Report (May 3) sends a clear signal.

Posted by TGC on 03/05/13 at 09:19 PM

#98 ...yeah Russel…I’m a forestry troll….get out from under your bridge champ….

Posted by Todd Walsh on 03/05/13 at 09:25 PM

Screwed.

Only thing I can’t figure out is if the LegCo knee-capping was totally unexpected or if this has been the grand plan all along. I.e. the industry would wring all the concessions it wanted from the eNGOS in return for the offer of reserves knowing all along they would never be countenanced by the upper house.

There is no bastardy I would put beyond the pale where the Tasmanian government is involved. I speak from experience.

Posted by T. Thekathyil on 04/05/13 at 05:45 AM

John Powell @ 96 - You obviously have little understanding of the machinations of Tas. Inc.

Posted by Artemisia on 04/05/13 at 06:51 AM

The Liberal Party will be elected to Government in March with probably 15 seats. Anti green warriors such as Peter Gutwein, Adam Brooks and Rene Hidding will be in power for up to a decade with what they will claim will be a huge mandate. An Abbott Government will also be elected federally. What Todd is saying is that the legislation for all its many faults well outlined in this thread allows some hope for conservation of lobster habitats and some wonderful forest areas. The Plan B of “it will all fall over anyway” is not without risk. Trucks are still rolling down the highway to ARTEC and in the absence of an agreement it could be conceivable that Brooksy et al with the backing of the Feds would pump money into the industry with no conservation gains at all. Don’t get me wrong I’m no fan of the agreement, but with the conservative tide coming fast it would be a risk to just rely on an industry collapse. No one has really answered Todd’s question. He has fought for years to get some of those catchment areas in the North west hinterland protected, what hope can people give him that this protection would happen in the absence of this legislation? Its clear from this thread and many others on TT that the conservation movement has been split over this issue. I hope that this is not permanent as inevitably in Tasmania there will be more battles to fight.

For those with long memories, the last time industry and conservationists sat around a table and ‘talked turkey’ was in 1989 at the ‘Salamanca Talks’. They failed, in part because conservationists would not accept or legitimise the ‘clearfell and burn’ method of forestry. Both sides were overconfident. Conservationists were on a roll and imagined that they could still get Fed intervention for large scale protection of wild places. For their part the industry figured they could keep gaming the system at State level. A quarter of a century of conflict later and no one is confident. The conservationists have endured a quarter century of clearfelling in HCV forest. As predicted 20 years ago the industry is now on its knees. Without FSC certification they have limited options. One of these is to burn HCV forests for electricity. See here: http://findinghomebookspace.blogspot.com.au/2013/01/burning-forests-for-electricity.html

The biggest and perhaps most dangerous compromise the ENGOs have made is to do what they didn’t do in 1989 – legitimise ‘clearfell and burn’ forestry. Their willingness to do so now is perhaps the most significant shift in the history of this conflict.

If ENGOs accept these practices as sustainable then it will be very difficult to argue against future roll-back of reserves. Essentially ENGOs have said ‘we will legitimise what you do as long as you give us the bits we want’. This is a pragmatic approach but it may open a Pandora’s box.

As a participant and observer of this conflict for the last 30 years I can say that this was a compromise forged on realism. For that reason it is likely to work. Let’s hope the Hodgeman’s, Abetz’s, and Lennons of this world will end up on the wrong side of history.

Posted by Erik Peacock on 04/05/13 at 07:25 AM

Erik #109/10, I don’t at all see that this legislation, or the agreement, legitimises current practices, specifically clearfall and burn. It is because of these practices that forestry in Tas is currently miles from FSC certification. And until FT and the industry in general here has FSC their markets are limited, and diminishing.

Posted by Rob Blakers on 04/05/13 at 08:36 AM

We may be down but we have to make sure we are not out.
The way I see it is that we were sold a pig in a poke.
Crap eh.
But and a big but.
What can we do now.
As Forestry Tasmania have announced and been forced to get FSC accreditation or at least try we can do our damn best to make sure that they get it.
So all environmentalists who can should join FSC Australia and lobby hard.
What we need to do is engage with FT and keep them on the straight and narrow path.
We have to make sure that they don’t deliberately sabotage their attempt to get FSC accreditation.
That is the big danger.
Because if they get FSC and the government of the day agrees we get the reserves.
If they don’t we don’t get the reserves.
It is actually in Forestry Tasmanias best interests to not get FSC as they get more land to log.
So we need to band together and make sure that during the process of trying or being seen to be trying to get FSC that we engage them.
They have to engage stakeholders so we have to register with FSC as stakeholders.
The milk has been spilt already, it has dried on the floor and is beginning to stink.
So lets get out the mop and make sure the mess is cleaned up.

Posted by Pete Godfrey on 04/05/13 at 08:41 AM

Frank #92, surely the requirement for FT to work towards FSC opens up opportunities to implement the excellent ideas that you have been championing for so long. Am I missing something here?

Posted by Rob Blakers on 04/05/13 at 08:42 AM

#103 Agree totally with your comments.

Posted by Stu on 04/05/13 at 09:03 AM

Since Mr McKim and others have told us that the Greens behave democratically, I find it surprising that his reasons for supporting the questionable (see article by Flanno) IGA don’t include:

...‘We canvassed a broad church of environmental defenders and a majority wanted to support the IGA…

Instead he says…“We considered…”

Who is ‘we’ exactly?

Posted by Mike Bolan on 04/05/13 at 10:57 AM

#110 Erik, you say “Let’s hope the Hodgeman’s, Abetz’s, and Lennons of this world will end up on the wrong side of history.”

There lies the problem, as the Liberals have promised to dismantle the Forest Agreement and would look quite foolish if they didn’t when elected at the next State election. Though I don’t accept their political philosophy, I do believe that all the signs are out suggesting Federal and State Liberal Governments at the next elections.

Rob Blakers suggested at #26 and #27 that some people should stand for Parliament. Who would really want to join a political party to be de-gutted; they would need a degree in spin; and would have a large proportion of the population against them constantly.

Posted by Keith Antonysen on 04/05/13 at 11:28 AM

Rob Blakers, you make the fundamental error of believing that FT and the Government (whatever the bloody colour or blend of colours) plays on a level playing field. They don’t. The battle weary posters here know that and that is why they may come across as a tired, cynical and just a tad pissed off.

TWS and ET were warned over and over where their naivete would land them…...and it has. Naive simpletons always get shafted - don’t you fall into the same trap.

Posted by Artemisia on 04/05/13 at 02:31 PM

By the March election we will have wall to wall Liberal Governments in Australia.

If at this point Tasmania elects a Liberal government we will see an instant increase in the GST.

Why? because all governments State and Federal have to be in agreement for an increase to take place.

A Tasmanian Labour government preferably in a Hung Parliament will be the only opposition.

If Kim Booth holds the balance of power would we could put a spoke in Abbotts wheel.

I expect Abbott is a GST tax man what else can you expect from a cyclist dressed in lycra.

Watch Abbott duck and dive over an increase and the allocation GST if and when he is elected. He is already ducking.

Working Together to achieve a positive outcome is inestimably better than whinging on TT about an outcome that is not to our liking.

How about you show Hodgman/Gutwein etc that there is a future for both a sustainable and profitable forestry industry and a 21st century environmental protection vision.

Get that mop and start wiping!

Posted by John Powell on 04/05/13 at 03:55 PM

The more we read about this ‘happening’ the more confused we are…we really do not know where to go…a New Greens…an Old Greens…a Passsive Greens…an Angry Greens. Somehow the Green ship-of-state seems rudderless.

Posted by Buck and Joan Emberg on 04/05/13 at 05:45 PM

Dissent is healthy and there are many reasonable arguments being put forward in comments here.

ACF, TWS and ET do not represent the environment movement in Tasmania - in fact only a tiny fraction of it. They have abused the social/political capital of decades of work from grass roots activists.

Translating that dissent into taking responsibility for collective action and an alternative environment association would be even better.

ACF, TWS and ET are no longer relevant players in environmental politics in the 21C.

Rebuilding a consultative and co-operative environment alliance is a priority to refocus on developing policy and action that is relevant to the urgent environmental issues we are facing.

To remain disconnected from collective action is to capitulate to those who have successfully divided to rule.

Posted by Emma Goldman on 04/05/13 at 06:07 PM

Anybody out there know much about how to keep a constant watch cctv directed upon the brigands of the forests?

(Er, of course, this cctv must be equipped with infra-red and heat activated captivation technology to capture the night stalkers going about their nefarious ‘after dark’ plotting.)

Posted by William Boeder on 04/05/13 at 06:10 PM

Being as it would seemingly take only minimal criticism of the TFA, by virtually anyone, to invalidate FT’s deferred reserve pledges, it seems we are relying on the good faith of the industry not to scupper it and not to invoke conservation’s cease fire as a sign of asocial license.

Both the industry and the Govt have fudged and lied every step of the way. Who thinks they are going to change now?

John Hayward

Posted by john hayward on 04/05/13 at 07:15 PM

Is there any message about this forest deal sham in the poor response to Ed Vincent’s crack at the Upper House seat of Montgomery?
A bit reminiscent of the attempt last year to oust Greg Hall.

Posted by TGC on 04/05/13 at 10:11 PM

Artemesia #117, I’ve been battling since the Franklin, which is long enough to know that we need to do everything that we can to make the future that we want. Indeed, that’s what we are here for.

This legislation leaves many future options open and opens up a raft of possibilities that did not hitherto exist. As others on this thread are saying, our job now is to ensure that the outcomes are as good as they can be, for the forests but also beyond the forests. This is our best chance in decades.

Posted by Rob Blakers on 04/05/13 at 10:37 PM

Never vote green again -quislings…...............and what is with gagging comment on the Flannagan post?.

Posted by moo on 05/05/13 at 12:11 AM

Contributors have asked, “What’s Plan B?” The green side of the debate doesn’t appear to have one, but I’m sure the knock-it-down-and-kill-it side certainly does and has had all along. In fact, it may well have been their Plan A.

My prognostication: FSC certification is not only unlikely, especially in the mandated time, but irrelevant. Mindless clearfelling and wood chipping will continue and even intensify. (Tasmania just cannot pull itself out of the high volume, low value, no-value-adding hole, in large part because of education and associated skill levels lower than many Third World countries).

This is also likely to extend to the HCV areas nominally slated for new reserves. I have no doubt that the “durability” tests will fail for one concocted reason or another.

External markets will likewise become irrelevant. The industry will become effectively self-contained and domestically based because the chips resulting from the process will be burned to produce electricity (no doubt heavily subsidised - even more so under the coming conservative state and federal governments).

The Gunns pulp mill site would be a good location for such a facility.

It’s all a scam, and the knock-it-down-and-kill-it side are laughing themselves silly right now.

(I’ve just read #109 Erik Peacock’s personal blog after writing this and find that we’ve converged on similar conjectures re industrial forestry’s Plan B [Erik]/ Plan A [me], but diverge in our views of its implications.)

Posted by RJ Peak on 05/05/13 at 12:54 AM

Rob, I too, have been battling since the Franklin days….....I’m sure you are very well meaning, but we have been shafted so many times that I’m afraid this latest little “deal” is just a farce, so that the b******s can carry on much as usual…....with sham FSC certification. The best certification money can buy, now that the imprimatur of the oh-so-very representative ENGOs is on the deal. Excuse my cynicism - I’m angry.

Posted by Artemisia on 05/05/13 at 08:10 AM

#125 “...beyond the forests. ...best chance in decades”
For what?

Posted by TGC on 05/05/13 at 08:27 AM

# 111 Rob Blakers, Clearfall, Burn and Reseed of areas for ongoing native forest, primarily eucalypts cannot exclude possible FSC!
The real issue is sustainability of existing eucalypt forests, both OG and Reg is its ability to comply with the revised cutting schedules till to 2026/27.

Given that the areas of State Forest are to be progressively reduced by “tranching” I am reasonably sure that this process in accordance with the TFA Act alone compromises sustainability within WPZ’s, there is no question that STZ’s (non clearfall/non burn/ dependent on natural seeding) will suffer because of lack of workable areas.

I am intrigued how the link between the Ta Ann operations dependent on regrowth, much of it I thought would have been reserved to grow onto primarily sawlog for future staged harvests.
Perhaps all of my native forest, past training, beliefs and on the ground experience was all in vain!
There is no excuse by FT for not being able to maintain a reasonable component of eucalypt forest for future production of high grade timber products!
I am not convinced that the ENGO’s supporting the TFA really understand their role of creating a FSC future for FT who is effectively silenced from public comment by hardline Chair Bob Annells and a most disapointing Labor puppet Forest Minister Bryan Green.

There is no hope of moving foward to sensibly discuss sustainability, let alone FSC unless there is open and frank discussion by all parties including the public.

I would like to see a list of regrowth coupes destined to be reserved for future high grade forest products set aside NOW rather than HVC areas. I am not convinced that the balance has been achieved but only a quick fix to get at the Federal Dollars before Labor loses the September election.

I doubt if this current Green controlled Labor government realise what is happening on their doorstep, hopefully neither will not be re elected in March 2014.

Posted by Robin Halton on 05/05/13 at 08:40 AM

In response to #125 “This is our best chance in decades.”
Is this what Ta Ann’s Evan, FT’s Bob and ARTEC’s Paul shared with you Rob?

Yes, I missed the Franklin Campaign as I still lived overseas at the time. However, less than 5 years later I watched how the ENGOs blinded themselfs in this exclusive ‘living museum’ style preservation agenda. “Lock it up”

This was and is not about inter-generational wisdom, this is about short lived “we know” what is best for the future.
The price for this ongoing push were the trashed trade off areas.
The waste and the speed of conversion was booming after more valuable forests had been officially protected / locked up.
Evan now blames State & Federal Governments having invited TA ANN to invest $79 million in Tasmania, he does not mention who was the key figure heads in doing so. This was his / their best chance in decades to get away with their practices. Just think about it, the damaging process continues with even more taxpayer funding.
Considering that we have political elections every few years, this “best opportunity in decades” can be seen in this light:

“Egocentrism can cause us to commit some very public social gaffes. Let’s say you’re waiting in line to check out at the grocery stores, and you need to get out of their quickly. You see an opportunity to jump ahead of someone else, and take it. Thinking only about the situation from your point of view, you don’t pay attention to the needs of everyone else, who may be in just as much a hurry as you are. Needless to say, your rude behavior will lead to expressions of scorn from every onlooker.

Occasional egocentric errors such as these are understandable and easily remedied. As we progress along the continuum to narcissism, however, egocentrism starts to take on a much more complex and problematic form. In egocentrism, you’re unable to see someone else’s point of view; but in narcissism, you may see that view but not care about it. Going even one step further, people high in narcissism become annoyed or even enraged when others fail to see things their way. At extremes, narcissism leads people to becoming exploitative, particularly among the subgroup known as entitled narcissists.”http://www.psychologytoday.com/.../it-s-fine-line-between-narcissism-and-egocentrism...

Posted by Frank Strie on 05/05/13 at 09:35 AM

#121 You say “Rebuilding a consultative and co-operative environment alliance is a priority to refocus on developing policy and action that is relevant to the urgent environmental issues we are facing”.

I think it is important - actually it is vital - that the rebuilding be in the nature of a “social” alliance, which incorporates the environmental as an essential element and also inorporates the economic.

The main reason that the Greens and the current “mainstream” ENGOs are doomed is that they have cut themselves adrift from any form of “social alliance”. The last three years demonstrates that most palpably. They have eschewed public participation, scorned public criticism and created a strongly hierarchical political party.

They have chosen to emulate the ALP in most respects, and the ALP is also rapidly withering on the vine as a party without a purpose beyond serving the interests of careerists.

Let us please not make the mistakes of the past by siloing an “environmental movement” as distinct and separate from the social. It will inevitably lead to a repetition of the same failures, the same exclusions and the same divisions which now plague us all.

Posted by Peter Henning on 05/05/13 at 10:51 AM

#Wake up & smell the roses Rob Blakers.

The only option this deal leaves open is that by some miracle the Fed/state Libs might backflip. But that scenario is extremely unlikely.

Tell me Rob how you will stop Abbott being elected in September & then lifting the temporary EPBC protection order on the 500,000ha?

When he inevitably does that the deal is dead. There is no security left for conservation through the deal.

PB has outlined it beautifully.

Was a few months of forest protection worth splitting the party in the most unprecedented sell out the Greens Party have ever seen?

Siding with factions outside the party including the ALP over the party’s pioneers & elders in what is being regarded as something close to the hijacking of the Tasmanian Greens?

Rob we now have The National Campaign Director of The Wilderness Society Lyndon Schneiders calling (on social media) Christine Milne a ‘bedfellow’ of Will Hodgman’s.

The disrespect & hostility from the Gang of Four’s new TFA factional buddies is open & aggressive.

Are the odds so stacked in favour of achieving all those conservation what-ifs that the massive collateral damage was worth it.

From where i’m sitting the answer is NO. I don’t see it Rob.

Posted by Pilko on 05/05/13 at 11:16 AM

A lot of comments, and this one could well be too late under the new limited time frame to post. I’ll try to keep it brief. Like others I’m deeply ambivalent about the deal, and would far rather it had not been passed. I totally applaud Kim Booth’s decision to reject it and cross the floor. I also stand absolutely with Christine Milne (and Richard Flanagan) in a refusal to be ‘silenced’ about the controversy over forest management, that will certainly continue because of this weakened, watered down ‘deal’, that appears to promise much to conservation, but in reality gives no certainty about anything.

But I loudly echo the still small voice of Tim Thorne, in reminding TT-readers that this peace deal was designed to facilitate the Tamar Valley pulp mill. Gunns may now have gone, but the mill remains an approved project, and the permits also remain valid - albeit still under a legal cloud as to their validity.

So, to all those who feel peace and the agreement must be given a chance, remember - always - that the Holy Grail of the forest deal was a pulp mill. Both Labor and the Liberals continue to support the pulp mill. Lara and Will have both repeated their wish to see it built, many times. So be very careful what you wish for, because the very great risk the ENGOs and the four Greens have taken, is that by signing this deal, they have also opened the door to the pulp mill - and the absolute certainty there will be more years of conflict, division and community protest. Because the other great certainty is that all that opposition to the mill has not, and will never, go away.

Posted by Anne Layton-Bennett on 05/05/13 at 01:37 PM

The various justifications and arguments put up by ENGO supporters get us nowhere.

The result of this arabesque is that forestry walks away with $350 million of public money and a new lease of life after facing total ruin, while the ENGOs walk away with a handful of promises and the responsibility to ‘police’ any anti-forestry action.

Blind Freddy can figure who won this little game.

What do we do now? We need to take control of our own democracy and start winning as a community for a change. In this charade, the community had no say and yet was charged to pay for the future depredations of forestry.

Posted by Mike Bolan on 05/05/13 at 01:41 PM

#134 “But I loudly echo the still small voice of Tim Thorne, in reminding TT-readers that this peace deal was designed to facilitate the Tamar Valley pulp mill”. Whenever this has been said in the past you have condemned it, and it has been said loudly enough for years. Whole articles have been written about it.

The voice of Tim Thorne on this matter has been clear for years, as has the voice of Karl Stevens, John Hayward, Frank Strie and others. Loud and clear, not small. So now you agree with them, do you, after being highly critical of them for years?

Or am I missing something?

Posted by Peter Henning on 05/05/13 at 04:19 PM

#135 Exactly.
It is also interesting to note how some who gave their wholehearted support to the process for several years and saw themselves as arch-defenders of it all, especially against those who argued that it was designed to get the pulp mill built, are now trying to wriggle to another position.

All praise is now being heaped on Christine Milne and Kim Booth, although both of them gave their support to the whole process from its beginnings. My praise goes to those who said - when it was not popular to do so - that the whole process was designed to get the pulp mill built.

My praise goes to those who were not silent when Lara Giddings told the parliament what some of us had already been saying - and been attacked for saying, way back whenever it was.

My praise certainly doesn’t go to any of the Greens who sat mute in the Tasmanian parliament when Giddings said the roundtable was establised to get the pulp mill built. It certainly doesn’t go to any of the ENGOs and their supporters who remained silent at that time.

But here they are, saying out loud what they condemned others for saying in the past, and saying it without the decency to apologise to those who they attacked and reviled.

I have a word for them, that Bob McMahon I have used privately to decribe them over the last three years, which won’t pass any censor anywhere, and it means more than “beyond contempt”.

Posted by Peter Henning on 05/05/13 at 04:53 PM

TWS and GetUp! attempt to re-write history to glibly suggest that they killed off Gunns Ltd and stoppped the Tamar Valley pulp mill is sheer egotism and thin-line away from narcissism.

Sorry ENGO fellas but if you now feign that you didn’t know what was going on in the real world and that you are convinced everyone knew you were not against all pulp mills whilst you talked with the likes of Forestry Tasmania [Bob Gordon, Hans Drieslsma et al], the CEO of Gunns Ltd [Greg L’Estrange] and the CEO of FIAT [Terry Edwards] then you must have been like the three monkeys: deaf, dumb and blind.

Non-engagement is no answer for a public-relations strategy. [In-house secret talks and silo-think tanks through Forest Reference Groups did not satisfy.]

ENGOs, where were you when so many high profile critics questioned your approach, your logic and your tactics over three years? Why didn’t you engage your critics?

Posted by David Obendorf on 05/05/13 at 06:08 PM

Peter and David, bitterness helps nobody, please get to the top of the glass!

Posted by john powell on 05/05/13 at 06:37 PM

#132 Couldn’t agree more about putting the ‘social’ back into ‘environmental alliance’.

Well, we’ve all given this TFA a good blast - Peter, Karl, Tim, David, P.B., John, Mike, Joan, Frank, Artemesia and others - when do we meet to talk turkey about this new social/environmental alliance?

Post TFA - actions speak louder than more and more words.

Posted by Emma Goldman on 05/05/13 at 07:03 PM

A long overdue apology or two might be in order, John Powell, (139)
People like David and Peter have every right to be extremely bitter about how this whole farce has panned out - almost precisely as was predicted and warned about…........predictions and warnings that were studiously ignored!

I’m just sitting back and watching as history gets re-written. It’d be funny were it not so contemptible.

Posted by Artemisia on 05/05/13 at 07:21 PM

Artemesia,

I unlike many have a half full glass, and I do not give apologies to those with a half empty glass full of bitterness who do not seek to collectively find a way forward in the gloom!

Criticism and sitting back and watching does just not work for this Celt!

Posted by John Powell on 05/05/13 at 07:58 PM

#136 Definitely missing something Mr Henning. But for reasons I’m totally unable to fathom, you’ve been determined to criticise me for some time for my very long-standing and totally steadfast commitment to ensuring a pulp mill is never built in the Tamar Valley. Goodness knows why since my position should be no secret to anyone who reads newspapers. Or TT. Your comments therefore are, frankly, bizarre - not to mention offensive and insulting.

Along with thousands of others I held hopes that an acceptable, workable, sustainable forestry deal could be reached, and this ghastly, destructive division among the community might end. But also along with thousands of others I held serious reservations about the negotiation process, if for no other reason than knowing full well it was designed to facilitate community acceptance for a pulp mill. And Mr Henning knows as well as I do that community acceptance for a pulp mill will never be given.

My choice of the ‘still small voice’ analogy should in no way be construed to mean Tim’s voice is small, (far from it!) merely that his comments re deal and mill - on this thread at least - have been thoroughly overwhelmed by the much louder voices of others who have failed to join the dots on this aspect of this flawed forestry deal.

Posted by Anne Layton-Bennett on 05/05/13 at 09:31 PM

#142 You miss the point entirely ... Over the last few years there have been a number of people with real expertise in forestry issues at international level who have presented, again and again, realistic and sustainable operating alternatives to what was happening in the trade-off process occurring since May 2010.

They were ignored, and continue to be ignored, much as the dinosaurs in any industry prefer to ignore how they are destroying themselves and everything around them.

In relation to those who have adopted positions of blind caucus support for whatever they are fed from their tribal elders, and continue to do so, while contradicting themselves in their frantic efforts to hide what they said in the past, I have nothing but something more than contempt, as I have already said.

You can interpret that as bitterness if you like. I see it differently ...

I reject completely your comment about “Criticism and sitting back and watching” as ignorant ...

The way forward is in a holistic approach, as I have often said, and whether you regard that as bitter or not I guess depends ...

Ed: Comment challenged, reviewed, edited for tone

Posted by Peter Henning on 05/05/13 at 09:48 PM

John Powell 142. You say you are in ‘gloom’ with a glass half full. Thats the problem. People who could not see the consequences of the multi-sided forestry Rubik’s cube. Shouldn’t the process have started in Parliament rather than ending there? Shouldn’t the people involved not have also been receiving taxpayer-funded payments under the scheme? Shouldn’t the people involved not have had conflicts of interest so the process was above board? Shouldn’t most of this work have been done by the Tasmanian Integrity Commission rather than free lance journos and bloggers? Bryan Green is the Minister for managing public forests and Bryan Green alone. Where did this 3 ring circus come from? Why did everything have to go thru a convoluted circular blender with countless layers of delusion and illusion? The problem was they all thought somebody else had a master plan when really they didn’t. Simple.

Posted by Karl Stevens on 05/05/13 at 10:02 PM

John Powell, I am not ‘bitter’ ... that is your word.

Profoundly sad at seeing another ‘dead carcass being picked over’ (as Christine Mine described it last Wednesday)? - yes

Demoralised by being deceived by individuals that I had invested my trust and my money in? - yes.

Disillusioned in Tasmanians’ inability to consider social inclusion, truth and genuine reconciliation as the basis for fundamental change in this 40-year confrontation? - of course. Thank you.

Posted by David Obendorf on 05/05/13 at 10:54 PM

#128 Artemesia, There is no possibility of FSC for any logging that might occur within the 504,000ha, and the ENGO’s do not determine the FSC status of the areas outside of the 504k.

#129 TGC, we live, in my view, in a world that is heading towards environmental catastrophe at an exponential rate. If we as a species are to survive we will need to work together. Relative to the last 50 years of ferocious attack on the finest of our oldgrowth forests and the cynically manipulated societal divisions that were engineered to accompany the destruction, this agreement offers a glimmer of hope in that regard.

#131 Frank, surely the opportunity for edging towards a sustainable forestry industry is greater now with the FSC imperative than it was before.

#133 Pilko, not so much into roses but be assured that I do find the occasional moment to contemplate nature. The Libs at a state level have said that they will undo any new reserves and Tony might also do just as you say and undo the Protection Order. So then the logging industry will have access to the HCV forests - but will they want it? More importantly, will their potential markets want to receive non FSC wood from areas that have been protected for their conservation value and then revoked for political ends. There’s a powerful inbuilt markets protection here that underlies the process and this will not change with the political change.

In the absence of this Agreement there would be no WHA extension nomination, which will protect the best of the surviving forests from Cockle Creek, the Picton, Weld, Styx, Florentine, Butlers Gorge, Navarre, Great Western Tiers and Mole Ck karst. In the absence of the legislation, flawed as it is, that chances of that nomination being accepted this June would be somewhere between slim and zero, given that in the post-collapse chaos there would be no reason or rationale for FT to cease logging in the Extension areas, with the result that the nomination would be deferred into the period of a likely Abbot rule.

For close on 50 years greed and ignorance have smashed and squandered incredible forests from one end of Tasmania to the other. The loss has been inexorable and pauseless. The chance now is to draw a line under the best of what’s left.

Posted by Rob Blakers on 06/05/13 at 12:13 AM

Rob Blakers (147) You place far too much faith in a certification system (FSC) that is as open to being corrupted as any other organization. Look how TCA has already attempted stacking the “social chamber” when we all know that organization is an astro-turf front for the logging industry.

I’m a bit more cynical than you are - the industry here will probably get FSC certification, but it will be a sham. I hope I’m wrong. i really do.

Posted by Artemisia on 06/05/13 at 06:46 AM

#148 Atemesia, agreed, that is a vulnerability, but it’s pretty obvious what we need to do about it.

Posted by Rob Blakers on 06/05/13 at 07:38 AM

Re #146 David Obendorf: Thank you, spot on.

Re #147 Rob Blakers:
The need to get the FSC process going was required since 2005 / 06.
Mitsubishi Paper, Nippon and other international customers decided 7 - 8 years ago that they required FSC. In late 2008 this turned into warning and by March 2010 the warning and the market ended - game over - for GUNNS, FT, FEA and others.

The exclusive, elitist ‘round table’ process in Hobart and Melbourne and the exclusive (cunning) deal process undermined and degraded the meaningful FSC process.
I say it here again: FSC is not an end to something, not a photo or poster on a wall; it is a living process, a relationship agreement. I even go as far as say it is like a family relationship agreement as it involved present and future generations.
Why do you deny the opportunities for responsible management to future generations?
No trust – that’s why.
Think of it Rob, this 2010 to 2013 egocentric (not eco-centric) process is not a good, strong foundation to build FSC Australia on.

To protect, manage the values Island Tasmania requires holistic processes.
This TFA construct is nothing to be proud of as it rewards bad behaviour.
No, if I would be in charge, I would go back to square one - NO rotten deal.
The ‘special council’ exclusive gatekeeper group lubricated with more money from Canberra is another layer of attempt to stack the future development of FSC Australia.
It well goes beyond this moment to explain the situation and I think the pro deal supporters are unable and unwilling to take such advice on board anyway.
Only time will tell.

Posted by Frank Strie on 06/05/13 at 08:35 AM

It’s good that other people are remembering the role of paper pulp in all of this. We are, of course, now one step closer to a pulp mill and I hope the Greens, TWS etc can live with that.

I don’t want to rake over the past, but I refuse to remain silent in the future (regardless of the size or strength of my voice, which has, bizarrely, become part of the debate).

Unity in opposition to the attacks on the environment, the economy and democratic principles is now necessary, and I think we should all ask ourselves where we stand on the following.

The exacerbation of climate change
The importation of non FSC timber
Restrictions on freedom of speech and assembly
Clear felling of native forests
The alienation of farmland for nitens plantations

If you are opposed to all or any of the above, please do what you can to have this Act rescinded and replaced with legislation which is beneficial, not detrimental, to the planet and its inhabitants.

Posted by Tim Thorne on 06/05/13 at 09:37 AM

Having followed this thread over the days I have read words of anger, cynicism, bewilderment, inquiry, hope, pragmatism and expectation. I imagine there would be some parallel with what occurred during the 3 years that went into the formation of the TFA.
Do we now find some collective consensus or not? Do we help make FSC work for industry and conservation? The collective brainpower and knowledge of TT contributors is quite amazing to contemplate in united action.

Posted by Carol Rea on 06/05/13 at 09:58 AM

Everyone needs to look at what happened at the weekend. A conservative landslide is on the way. 15 seats in March at least for the Libs. In voter land whilst we bicker amongst ourselves we are all considered “greenies” which must be crushed at the next election to pave the way for a majority Liberal government. Do we think Brooksy, Will, Rene and Peter G are going to have any environment friendly policies leading up to the election? Their constituents are saying they want “jobs” and “lets open up Tassie for business” what that means for the environment is anyone’s guess but protection of forests and/or the Tarkine won’t be in their plan.

Posted by David Mohr on 06/05/13 at 10:32 AM

David Mohr #153:...“In voter land whilst we bicker amongst ourselves we are all considered “greenies” which must be crushed at the next election to pave the way for ...”
an alternative.
The exclusive 2010 to 2013 + “Roundtable” - Kelty Process - IGA - TCA construct created a division in our society and it still does not provide responsible resource management now.
Many have pointed this out as soon as the stench began to be noticed and any advice and constructive critical comments were ignored and dismissed.
The situation Tasmania is now in does not create trust and collaboration.
What is the motivating factor for the broad community to simply go along with this irresponsible situation? Fear? Angst? How fantastic is that?!

This quick push over before the next democratic elections is desperate stuff, not sustainability thinking.
The signatory ENGOs and the 4 pro-deal Greens in Tasmanian State Parliament ignored the many and constant warnings.
Now that the critical voices come out into the open, looking for excuses, masking over reality does not cut the mustard.
The ‘quicky’ attitude in Tasmania continues to damage the future directly and indirectly.
Proper process is what our Children’s Children deserve.

Posted by Frank Strie on 06/05/13 at 02:38 PM

David O, with all due respect the word “bitter” was not mine it was that of Artemisia, and Karl S, I am not in “gloom”, you guys are!

I remain positive like Rob B and others. Please get over it and find a way forward that works for the industry the environment and your children’s children. I am but an innocent in the forestry world.

Carol at #152 sums up my position!

I will make no further comment!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Posted by John Powell on 06/05/13 at 07:25 PM

#155 Righto John Powell.

You’ve slung a fair bit of your own shit now exhorting us to close ranks & hope.

Give us your scenario oh fearless leader.

If you expect us to follow you on this journey to peace in our time then you need to show us where we are going. That’s only fair.

Lay it out mate. What does the winners scenario look like? How will it play out? Walk us through it step by step. How to get around the problem of the Libs etc…the lot.

Faithfully yours in all things Green & cuddly.

xx

Pilko

Posted by Pilko on 06/05/13 at 08:20 PM

No doubt the TFA will be as good as the Tasmananian Integrity Commission has turned out to be.

Interestingly, Future Tasmania is the only member group of ET that has had a role in both.

A done, dusted and dud deal.

Posted by Emma Goldman on 06/05/13 at 09:00 PM

Re #156
Seems John Powell was only up until recently telling us all how badly he’s been treated over the years with his property by the loggers. How one changes their tune so quickly!

You lot still haven’t shown anyone where exactly in this Bill it guarantees the protection of a single tree.

Posted by Russell Langfield on 07/05/13 at 08:41 AM

#158 The World Heritage Nomination of 170,000 hectares is looking pretty certain Russell. Would have had a much more tentative position without the TFA as the possibility of deferral was quite real.
As of today the chainsaws are silent and the bulldozers are gone in over 500,000 hectares of wild forest.The logging plans are torn up. Those trees are protected in law as of today as Future Reserve Land. And yes there is a process to gazette each reserve that has to go through the Upper House. And there is a durability clause. Who knows the pro-loggers may lock-on to a tree and upset things.
But since it all complies with their own amended Bill it would look very very silly for the LegCo to not pass them into fully gazetted reserves.

Posted by Carol Rea on 07/05/13 at 09:52 AM

#159 Carol can u outline why you believe the WHA nomination is more secure with TFA?

Why without TFA would deferral by IUCN be a real risk?

Isnt it also true that the IUCN now legally own the nomination & it will be assessed on its merits whether the TFA was passed or not? The nomination cant be withdrawn & nothing Aus Govt can do about that.

Isnt it also true that logging is still occurring in WHA nominated Styx, Butlers Gorge & Tyenna & will continue for some months?

Posted by Pilko on 07/05/13 at 11:08 AM

#160 Pilko, as part of the TFA FT has undertaken to cease all logging within the WHA nominated area “within a week or 2”. If the legislation had not been passed there would be no reason for FT to uphold this undertaking, especially as they know all too well that if logging continues past the end of June the nomination would be deferred pending further investigation into the likely Abbot era. i.e. deleted.

Posted by Rob Blakers on 07/05/13 at 07:07 PM

Can legal person amongst the TT bloggers explain what Permier Lara Gidding was on about last weekend when she talked about the ‘dis-allowance period’ on the TFA legislation that is set to expire in Sept or October of 2013? Thank you.

Posted by David Obendorf on 07/05/13 at 11:18 PM

I often wonder which part of the word majority so many of TT’s correspondents don’t or refuse to understand?

When it comes to elections the majority are told that they either got in wrong or didn’t understand what was at stake. This like much of this string is best appalling arrogance at worst it is something far more sinister - it is undemocratic.

The majority of Tasmanians voted over numerous elections, for a pulp mill. The majority of Tasmanians vote for candidates other than Green candidates and this has been true for the last 30 years it would seem that this will be even more likely at this year’s federal election and the 2015 State election. And while I don’t want either an Abbott or a Hodgman government I will accept the will of the majority because like it or not that’s democracy in a democracy there are winners and losers not just winners.

Posted by Bazzabee on 08/05/13 at 05:06 PM

Name:

Email:

Location:

URL:

Remember my personal information

Notify me of follow-up comments?

Before you submit your comment, please make sure that it complies with Tasmanian Times Code of Conduct.